Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Banshraj Yadav @ Banshraj Singh Yadav, Son of Ramayan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, 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 23.08.2006 and order of sentence dated 25.08.2006 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 695 of 1994/235 of 2004 arising out of Durgawati P.S. Case No. 34 of 1994 dated 10.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-II, Kaimur, Bhabhua, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 part II and Sections 323 /34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 304/34 part II of the IPC and further one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 of the IPC and both the sentences will run concurrently.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, namely Radhe Shyam Singh (PW-5) recorded fardbeyan on 10.05.1994 at 3:00 pm before police that on 09.05.1994 in evening at 7:00 pm there w
Conviction under Section 304 IPC upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; appellant acquitted under Section 323 IPC due to lack of medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in rape cases; contradictions in testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in cases of direct evidence, and the diminished significance of motive in such cases.
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.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony due to delays and contradictions cannot be sustained, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.
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
