Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR
Satyendra Choubey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. These criminal appeals filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C are linked together as these are arisen out of the same occurrence wherefrom case and counter-case were instituted by the parties against each other.
2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that one of the appellants, namely, Raj Kumar Choubey in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 1994 (R), had died during the pendency of the appeal and vide order dated 27.02.2023 Criminal Appeal No.190 of 1994 (R) qua the appellant, namely, Raj Kumar Choubey stands abated.
3. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.190 of 1994 is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamu, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the appellants, above-named, have been convicted under sections 452, 341, 307/34, 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the . They are further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each under section 307/34 . They are further sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each for other offence under section 452 . The appellant, namely, Satyendra
In cases of cross-complaints arising from the same incident, both cases should be tried together; insufficient evidence to ascertain guilt leads to acquittal on severe charges.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and the presence of provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Point of Law; It is well settled by plethora of judicial pronouncements by this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless prove....
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased sustained any firearm injuries, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The court established that the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially those with a history of enmity towards the accused, must be scrutinized carefully, and that the prosecution bears the burden of pr....
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
