Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR
Braj Kishore Sharma, Son of late Ramdayal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. list of prosecution witnesses and evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellants' failure to present defense evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. death of appellant during appeal. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments on behalf of appellants regarding evidence suppression. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. defense arguments by the state counsel. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's assessment of evidential sufficiency. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. court's ruling on appeal. (Para 26) |
| 9. compensation award recommendation. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. directives for further proceedings. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2010 and the order of sentence dated 07.10.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 790 of 2009, whereby the Appellants have been found guilty under Sections 452 , 324, 326 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for five
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal; the victim is entitled to compensation under relevant legal pro....
(1) Age determination is of paramount importance for ascertaining whether or not an accused comes within purview of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.(2) Compensation to vi....
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as below 18 years, thus the POCSO Act was not applicable, leading to a modification of the conviction under IPC.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The conviction of the appellant was overturned due to insufficient evidence, with reliance on the testimony of an incompetent child witness and failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
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
