Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHR
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Nawal Kishore Gope S/o- Chhatu Gope – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution narrative of the incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. examining contradictions and inconsistencies. (Para 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. principles regarding acquittal appeals. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and revision application. (Para 27) |
GUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
The State has preferred Govt. Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1999 under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the judgment dated 27.07.1999 passed by the court of learned A.D.J.-XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 319/96, arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case No.258/95 whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted both the accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, of all the charges levelled against them.
2. Prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan dated 03.12.1995 recorded at 20:00 hours given by Deepak Kumar @ Dipu in P.M.C.H. Emergency Ward is that on 03.12.1995 at 19:00 hours while he was lying on his bed in the room inside his house and his mother Raj Mahal Devi was standing there, three young miscreants, aged about 25 years each, came inside the room and one of them, who was hav
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with a double presumption in favor of the accused, making it difficult to overturn a trial court's acqui....
An appellate court may reappraise evidence in acquittal appeals but maintains double presumption of innocence, requiring clear support for findings before altering trial court decisions.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
The principles governing appeals against acquittal emphasize the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the appellate court exer....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
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
