Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Satrughan Singh S/o Late Sheonath Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2025 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - XIIIth, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2015, arising out of Derni P.S. Case No. 103 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the Riju Kumar is the informant/complainant of the case and accused persons are brother, father, mother and family members of his brother-in-law. It is alleged that sister of informant and her husband had returned two months ago after earning. It is further that sister of informant and her husband had planted the crop of wheat and potato on the land in their share. The informant /complainan
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The court emphasized that a single credible witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction, even with investigative lapses, provided it establishes the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
