Back
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Manindra Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The aforesaid appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992 / 37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Judge’), hence the same are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 29.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as far as the appellants of the second case are concerned, they have also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the order of sentence dated 30.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and as far as the appellants of the second case are concerned, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acqu....
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
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
