Back
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Bhushan Mahto S/o Arjun Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro Camp at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 whereby the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 47(a) of Excise Act has been sustained, but the sentence has been modified and reduced to three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause. The petitioners were convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 554 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 145 of 2011 for offence under Section 47(a) of Excise Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that out of 11 charge-sheeted witnesses, only five have deposed before the learned court below and out of them, two
The prosecution must prove the seizure and the nature of the seized material beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not suffic....
The sufficiency of evidence, including the requirement for proper chemical analysis and the examination of independent witnesses, is crucial in determining the sustainability of a conviction in the e....
The court upheld that convictions can rely on official witness testimony even without independent corroboration if the evidence is credible, and absence of chemical analysis report does not invalidat....
Conviction for illicit liquor possession cannot be based solely on non-chemical tests; lack of adequate evidence warrants acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The conviction under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was set aside due to prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on procedural violations.
Non-compliance of statutory provisions, lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, errors in lower court orders.
The testimony of official witnesses can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable and consistent, even in the absence of independent witnesses.
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
