Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Amar Tiwari, Son Of Shomeshwar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. foundation of the prosecution case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court's findings on evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments from appellants and state. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's analysis on informant's credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. guidelines for appeals against acquittal. (Para 22) |
| 6. final order and dismissal of appeal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the informant for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) in connection with Sessions Trial No.490 of 2003 arising out of Thakraha P.S. Case No. 74 of 2001.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Amar Tiwary who has been examined as PW-6 in the pre
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, particularly when witness accounts are contradictory.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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 guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must provide reliable and compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; hearsay and inconsistent testimonies do not suffice.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify 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
