Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Dinesh Kumar, son of Puneshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Ashok Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary who was put on trial in ST Case No.57 of 2021 on the charge under sections 364-A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been acquitted of the aforesaid criminal charges by a judgment dated 12th April 2022 rendered by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, at Godda.
2. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Singh who is the informant of Godda (Town) PS Case No.235 of 2019 being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12th April 2022 passed in ST Case No.57 of 2021 has filed the present acquittal appeal by virtue of proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. A First Information Report was lodged on 14th September 2019 under sections 364-A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ashok Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary, Chikku Choudhary, Sonu Choudhary, Annu Singh, Rahul Sah, Amit Tiwary, Abhay Kumar and Pappu Jha. In the written report given to the officer-in-charge of Godda (Town) PS, the informant made serious allegations of his abduction and assault with the butt of a pistol by Munna Tiwary and an attempt by the other accused to strangulate him with gamcha. A
The judgment underscores the importance of the First Information Report, the need for corroborative evidence, and the caution required in evaluating related witnesses' testimonies in criminal cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony, and the necessity to foll....
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Credibility and reliability of witness testimonies are critical in criminal convictions; lack of corroboration and non-examination of key witness can lead to reasonable doubt.
Power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a “possible view.
The significance of the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the evidence of injured witnesses, and the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence were central to the court's decision.
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
