Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Ram Prasad Yadav S/o- Late Ganga Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Pandey, J.
Both the above stated appeals have arisen out of same judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004 and accordingly they have been heard together and a common judgment is being passed in both the above stated appeals.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The above stated appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 639 of 1999 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 74 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
4. According to written report of informant (PW-2), the occurrence is of 04.06.1999 at 4:00 PM whereafter FIR was registered by S.H.O., Murliganj Police Station Madhepura.
5. As per prosecution case, the P.W. 2 who is the informant of the case, narrated the story of prosecution alleging therein that on 04.06.1999 at 4 PM he alongwith
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.
A conviction under Section 394 IPC requires evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is compromised by significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness statements.
(1) Delay in transmission of FIR to court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more – Where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and unacceptable, long delay has to be taken note of by C....
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....
Prosecution must prove intent for kidnapping under Section 366 IPC; mere abduction insufficient for conviction, especially when delays and contradictions in victim's testimony exist.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
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
