Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Md Isa Son of Late Abdur Rahman @ Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basic context of the appeal and trial court's acquittal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence appraisal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 33) |
| 4. medical evidence vs. witness testimonies. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the trial court records.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (informant) under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment and order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Araria (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 1196 of 2012 arising out of Araria (Bairgachhi) P.S. Case No. 634 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondent nos. 2 to 3 from the charges under Sections 341 , 324, 323, 307, 5
The presumption of innocence is reinforced in cases of acquittal, and appellate courts may only overturn acquittals upon finding that guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
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 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 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.
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
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 charges beyond a reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence resulted in the acquittal of the accused as intent to kill was not established.
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
