Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Pradeep Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Sudin Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Heard Mr. Madhav Jha, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Kanchan Jha and Mr. A.M.P Mehta, learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 1990 / 68 of 2004 in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 265 of 1989 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.-V, Araria, whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 354 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. However, both the sentence shall run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 02.11.1989 at about 6 am informant Ramanand Tatma sent his son Dinesh Tatma to call accused Pradip Kumar Singh for inquir
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in testimonies and absence of key witnesses, leading to acquittal.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of key evidence undermines conviction.
Criminal prosecution requires solid evidence, and non-examination of key witnesses by the prosecution introduces a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to examine the Investigating Officer can result in significant prejudice to the accused, as demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence supported by corroborating witnesses; failure to examine critical witnesses creates reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
