Bindeshawar Sah v. State Of Bihar & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
acquittal rendered by the learned lower court is found to be suffering from gross procedural error and on account thereof, is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that prosecution had adduced 11 witnesses in support of its case who have had thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution arraying the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 to be author of injuries over the person of deceased Yogendra Sah, however did not find favour by the learned lower court which ought to have been.
It has been submitted that fair trial is the essence of criminal jurisprudence. It is a sound principle of law that an innocent should not be convicted but simultaneously the guilty should not be let off. By non procurement of appearance of I.O. as well as doctor, the learned lower court virtually left no other option than to acquit the O.P. Nos.2 to 4. So submitted that it is a fit case wherein the matter should be remanded back for evidence of doctor as well as I.O. after setting aside the judgment of acquittal. Also referred 2003 AIAR
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 401; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 14 Nov 2013. The bench was ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.