Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Bhuil Manjhi, S/o Khelawan Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in S.Tr. No. 532 of 2000 in connection with Kudhni (Turki) P.S. Case No. 04 of 1999 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC).
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial Court has also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-upon each of the appellants.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Bhola Manjhi, who is the brother of the deceased and has been examined as
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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 requires consistent evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions raise reasonable doubt regarding guilt.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to 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 ....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
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
