Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, ANSHUMAN
Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Vivek Kumar @ Golu S/o- Late Ramanand Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal under section 374 of crpc (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural requirements for evidence (Para 3 , 26 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. factual background of the murder case (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. witness identification issues (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. confession and its admissibility issues (Para 15 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. limits of admissible confession evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 29) |
| 7. judgment set aside due to evidentiary failures (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
This is an appeal under Section 374 (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter described as 'CrPC' in short) filed by the convict assailing the judgment of conviction dated 11th April 2018 and the order of sentence dated 17th April 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd Court, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2017 arising out of Araria P.S. Case No. 856 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of non payment of fine further simple imprisonment of one year and he was further convicted for committing offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced for r
The use of inadmissible evidence, particularly confessions made to police officers, is grounds for overturning a conviction under criminal law.
Mere recovery of minor rape-murder victim's body from accused's locked room, without proof of last seen together, accused's presence or forensic link, fails to form complete circumstantial chain for ....
In appeals against acquittal, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and an acquittal should be upheld if any plausible view supports the trial court's decision.
(1) Kidnapping, murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Brutality of offence does not dispense with legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Courts can convict accused only if ....
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Merely because disclosure made by accused is translated from one language to another language and recorded in a third language, it cannot be contended that it is not admissible in evidence, if transl....
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and all links in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established 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
