Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Kalendra Yadav S/o Naresh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhas Chandra learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2007 and 08.11.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2002, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 119 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 2330 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-IVth, Bhojpur at Ara whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years.
3. The prosecution case is based on the Fardbeyan of the informant before the police of Sahar P.S. Case No. 119 of 1998 stating therein that on 08.10.1998 at about 12 AM the informant went to the canal with her goat, in the meantime, Kalendra Yadav came their and tried to outrage her modesty after opening her panty, but she put a bite in his hand, raised alarm, after which one Mushhar (villager) came and the appellant fled away. Therea
Credibility of witness testimony and the need for corroborative evidence are essential in sexual assault cases; mere hearsay and inconsistencies cannot support a conviction.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
The testimony of family members is credible and should not be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the victim, especially in the absence of independent witnesses.
The prosecution's failure to provide cogent evidence and independent corroboration resulted in the acquittal of the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
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 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 contradictions in the informant's testimony, along with lack of corroborative evidence, necessitate acquittal.
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
