IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Sk. Lal Babu, son of Sk Mir Hassan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Heard Mr. Mahendra Thakur assisted by Mr. Shashi Bhusan Pandey for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 621 of 2008, Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 687 of 2008 and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal 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 19.05.2008 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2008 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 763 of 2006 arising out of Banjaria P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005 dated 10.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)-I, Motihari, whereby and where-under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 364/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Sections 364/34 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 1 year.
3. As per the fardbeyan of the informant, on 09.01.2005 at 9:50 PM to the police alleging that on the same day at about 7.00
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to examine key witnesses, particularly the Investigating Officer, creates reasonable doubt that mandates acquittal.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence supported by corroborating witnesses; failure to examine critical witnesses creates reasonable doubt, necessitating 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 failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in testimonies and absence of key witnesses, leading to acquittal.
The conviction based on uncorroborated and hostile witness testimonies, along with failure to examine key witnesses, does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of key evidence undermines conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence and significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The absence of independent witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution's case, and minor discrepancies in the evidence do not affect the trustworthiness of the witness.
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.