Justice Vipul M. Pancholi is all set to take charge as Chief Justice of Patna High Court after Supreme Court Collegium recommended his appointment. He was transferred from Gujarat High Court to Patna High Court and took oath as Judge, Patna High Court on July 24, 2023. Justice
Pancholi did his Bachelor of Science (Electronics) from St. Xavier's
College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat University and Master of Law in Commercial
Group from Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat University. He
entered the Bar in September 1991 and started practice as an advocate in
the High Court of Gujarat. He was appointed as Assistant Government
Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Gujarat and
served as such for seven years till March 2006. He was Honorary Joint
Editor of Law Reporter-The Gujarat Law Herald for two years. He worked
as visiting faculty at Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad from
December 1993 for twenty one years. As an Advocate, he conducted
important cases in various branches of law, viz. criminal law, civil
law, property law, service law, family law, banking law and other laws.
He was elevated as Additional Judge, Gujarat High Court on October 1,
2014 and confirmed as permanent Judge on June 10, 2016. He was born on
May 28,1968 at Ahmedabad.
On the first day at the Patna High Court he was part of the Division Bench headed by Justice Ashutosh Kumar which pronounced their 19-page long judgement in Rupchand Kewat vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2023) wherein it set aside the judgement and order of the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hilsa at Nalanda, which had convicted the appellants under Section 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the I.P.C. respectively along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgement was authored by Justice Kumar.
Justice Pancholi authored his first judgement four days after joining the Patna High Court in Shankar Yadav & Ors. vs. The State Of Bihar (2023) and Jagdeo Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar (2023) wherein he upheld the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera, Samastipur in a Sessions Trial in a case whose arose in 2012. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants/accused person from Muzaffarpur for the offences punishable under Sections-302 read with 149, 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offences punishable under Sections-302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In his 13-page long judgement dated July 28, 2023, Justice Pancholi observed that the Trial Court did not commit any error while passing the impugned order.
He authored his second 26-page long judgement dated August 2, 2023 in Kamakhya Giri vs. The State of Bihar (2023), wherein the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of March 2019 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Aurangabad was upheld. It arose out of a case from 2016, whereby all the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8-20 (b) ii (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
He authored his third 25-page long judgement dated August 18, 2023 in Mani Kant Singh@ Tunna Singh vs The State of Bihar (2023) wherein the judgment of conviction and order of January, 2014 by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sitamarhi in a Session Trial of 2013 in a case which arose in 2011 was set aside. The appellant, namely, Mani Kant Singh @ Tunna Singh was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the trial court. He felt a persuaded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bahal Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1976 SC 2032. The Supreme Court had noted that the Trial Cpurt hd grave doubts about the presence of two prosecution witnesses at the time and place of occurrence. It observed: "If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny." It had underlined that "There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses. It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial Judge.” The appellants' counsel also relied upon the decisions the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 SC 3373, Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 (5) SCC 272, Assoo Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2011 (14) SCC 448 and Javed Masood and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2010 SC 979.
He authored his fourth 35-page judgement dated August 22, 2023 in Brahmdeo Sahni vs.The State of Bihar (2023) wherein the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence March 2015 by Additional District and Sessions Judge-7, Begusarai in connection with Session Trial of 2009 arising out of a case of 2009 was set aside. The appellants, namely, Brahmdeo Sahni in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.521 of 2015 and Parmanand Sah in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.418 of 2015 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He directed Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay Rs.5,000/ to Ms. Surya Nilambari, the Amicus Curiae for the assistance she rendered to the Court.
Justice Pancholi authored his fifth 18-page long judgement dated August 22, 2023 in Bhimal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2023), wherein he quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction from May 2015 and order of sentence by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barh, Patna in a Session Trial of 2006 in a case which arose in 2001 are quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 10,000 only for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court observed, "Fine, if any paid by the appellant, be returned to him immediately."
Justice Pancholi authored his sixth 25-page long judgement dated August 24, 2023 in Bhantu Rai @ Mantu Rai vs. The State of Bihar (2023) through the Informant Nitesh Kumar. He acquitted Bhantu Rai @ Mantu Rai of the charges levelled against him in the judgment of March 2015 by Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Sitamarhi in a Sessions Trial of 2013 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act, arising out of a case of 2012.
Justice Pancholi authored his seventh 23-page long judgement dated August 28, 2023 in Sudistha Singh @ Sudishtha Singh vs.The State of Bihar (2023), wherein he set aside the judgment of conviction dated March 30, 2016 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Session Trial of 2013 arising out of a case of 2011. The appellant, namely, Sudistha Singh @ Sudishtha Singh acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the learned trial court. He was directed to be released forthwith.
Justice Pancholi authored his eighth 16-page long judgement dated August 29, 2023 in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs.The State of Bihar (2023), wherein the judgement reads: "we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and the case of the appellant does not fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, he cannot be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. as alternatively contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, no error is committed by Learned Trial Court while passing impugned order." The Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Saran, Chapra convicted appellant by judgement dated May 22, 2015 and had passed order of sentence dated May 28 May, 2015 in Sessions Trial of 2014 which arose out of a case of 2013. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and 5 years R.I. under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 5,000/. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Justice Pancholi authored his ninth 23-page long judgement dated August 29, 2023 in Bajrang Shankar vs.The National Investigation Agency, Patna (2023), wherein in the penultimate paragraph, he concluded:"A fortiori, we deem it proper to reverse the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent. Instead, we agree with the conclusion recorded by the Designated Court that in the facts of the present case, the respondent is not entitled to grant of bail in connection with the stated offences, particularly those falling under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act....the impugned judgment and order [Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11185] is set aside and, instead, the order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application for grant of bail made by the respondent herein, is affirmed....we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail".
Notably, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Pancholi and Chandra Shekhar Jha set aside the judgement dated September 13, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Dr. S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel which had concluded: "this Court holds, for the limited purposes of the present appeal, that there are no reasonable grounds to form an opinion at this stage that the accusations against the Appellant under the UAPA are prima facie true. The Court is also not satisfied at this stage that there is prima facie material to show the involvement of the Appellant in any criminal conspiracy with the other accused justifying the accusations for the offences under Section 120-B IPC or Section 121, 121-A, 124-A IPC. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities....The impugned order dated 8th June, 2018 of the trial Court is accordingly set aside. The Appellant is directed to be released on bail..."
Significantly, the Delhi High Court judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court. The Patna High Court's Division quoted para 56 of the Supreme Court judgment which reversed the Delhi High Court's verdict.
Patna High Court's Division Bench had passed the judgement after hearing the appellant who had filed a bail application in the pending trial in a Special Case of 2019 before the Special Judge, NIA Act, Patna which was dismissed vide order dated September 28, 2021 in the matter of F.I.R. of 2018 at Muffasil Police Station in the District of Munger, under Sections-121, 379, 414 and 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections-25(1A), 25(1AA), 25(1-B)(a) and Sections- 26 and 35 of the Arms Act read with Section-39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (U.A.P.A.) relating to recovery of 3 A.K.-47 weapons and arrest of two persons who were involved in supply of A.K.-47 weapons to Maoists and other criminals in various States from Army Armory, Jabalpur, Bhopal. All together 26 persons were named in the category of accused in the F.I.R. The appellant was not named in the F.I.R but during course of investigation, he was implicated and arrested and he has been in custody since January 6, 2019. His counsel had relied on decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, particularly para-17 and 18 of the judgment and para 14 of the decision in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 915 of 2023.
In Bajrang Shankar vs.The National Investigation Agency, Patna (2023), Additional Solicitor General had relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of National Investigation Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 1 and sought dismissal of the appeal.
Justice Pancholi authored his tenth 16-page long judgement dated August 30, 2023 in Latyain Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2023) concluded:'we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error while passing the order of conviction against the appellants." He set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated June 22, 2016 and order of sentence dated June 23, 2016 passed by 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamui in connection with Sessions Trial which arose out of case of 2012. The appellants, namely, Latyain Yadav in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.720 of 2016 and Jagdeo Yadav in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1024 of 2016 were acquitted by the High Court of the charges levelled against them by the trial court. Both were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court.
Justice Pancholi authored his eleventh 19-page long judgement dated August 31, 2023 in in Kisto Paswan vs. The State of Bihar (2023) concluded:"we are of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error while recording the order of conviction against the present appellant and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside." The impugned judgment of conviction dated March 6, 2017 and order of sentence dated March 8, 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Session Trial Case of 2006/649 of 2007/434 of 2008 which arose out of 2005 case was quashed and set aside.
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench dismisses State Government's appeal against 1999 judgement of acquittal by A.D.J.-XII, Patna in a Sessions Trial involving death of Raj Mahal Devi in 1995
In his last 31-page long judgement dated May 13, 2025 prior to the recommendation by Collegium, in The State of Bihar vs. Nawal Kishore Gope & Anr. (2025), Justice Pancholi led Division Bench which included Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra dismissed State Government's appeal of 1999 filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal is dismissed along with the revision application filed by the informant challenging the very same judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. The judgement was delivered after hearing the Government Appeal of 1999 and Criminal Revision case of 1999 Deepak Kumar vs.The State of Bihar & Ors (2025). In the appeal, the second respondent was Kanhai Gope. In the revision case, the second and third respondents Nawal Kishore Gope and Kanhai Gope
The State had preferred Govt. Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1999 under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated July 27, 1999 passed by the court of A.D.J.-XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 319/96, arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case No.258/95 whereby the Trial Court had acquitted both the accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, of all the charges levelled against them.
The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan dated December 3, 1995 recorded at 20:00 hours given by Deepak Kumar in P.M.C.H. Emergency Ward is that on December 3, 1995 at 19:00 hours informant's mother Raj Mahal Devi was murdered. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered for Sessions Trial. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
A.P.P. appearing for the appellant/State submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the incident in question who have supported the case of the prosecution, despite which the Trial Court has discarded their deposition. It is contended that though the informant, Deepak Kumar had lodged the FIR against unknown persons and did not disclose the names of the assailants while giving fardbeyan, he had given the explanation for not giving the names of the assailants to the police while giving his fardbeyan. It was submitted that Gauri Shankar Yadav, the brother of the accused, while carrying the injured to the hospital in tempo had given threat to the informant and, therefore, he had not disclosed the names of the assailants at the relevant point of time. APP submitted that the medical evidence also supported the case of the prosecution and, in fact, informant, PW-4, who was an injured eye-witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. But the Trial Court did not believe the version given by him. APP also submitted that the Trial Court has committed grave error while acquitting the respondents/accused and, therefore, the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside and the present appeal be allowed.
The counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that for the alleged incident which took place at 07:00 p.m., the informant Deepak Kumar gave his fardbeyan at 08:00 p.m., i.e., within one hour in the hospital itself. But in his fardbeyan, he did not give the names of the assailants. It was submitted that the present respondents/accused have falsely been implicated because of family dispute between the parties and, in fact, the present respondent Nawal Yadav and his brother Gauri Shankar Yadav took the injured to the hospital. The respondents/accused referred the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. It was submitted that, in fact, the respondent/accused, Nawal Kishore had signed the said inquest. Thus, he was very much present on the next day morning at 10:45 a.m. on December 4, 1995.
The respondents/accused further submitted that even the statement of the informant and the other two witnesses under Section 164 of the Code was recorded on January 5, 1996, after more than one month. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order of acquittal in favour of the respondents/accused.
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench observed: "We are of the view that there are major contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in the version given by the prosecution witnesses and, in fact, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court and we are of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal."
The Division Bench referred to the decision rendered by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.621 of 2023 (Purushottam Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr.), wherein the Court has held in paragraph nos.18, 19 and 20 as under:
“18. It is pertinent to note that we are dealing with the acquittal appeal filed by the informant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 has observed in paragraph no. 42 as under:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Justice Pancholi recalled the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605 has observed in paragraph no. 22:- “22. Recently, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Drawing on these decisions by Supreme Court, the High Court observed: "it can be said that there is double presumption in favour of the accused, when the order of acquittal has been accorded by the Trial Court, Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Relying on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, Justice Pancholi concluded: "if the present Government Appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal is examined, we are of the view that the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record....no interference is required in the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court." The High Court also dismissed the revision application filed by the informant challenging the same judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench had delivered almost similar 28-page long judgement dated May 12, 2025 in the State of Bihar vs. Bidhesh Paswan & Ors. (2025) and dismissed the State appeal of 1999 against the judgment of acquittal of 1999 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial of 1993, wherein the Trial Court had acquitted all the 15 respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. The judgement was authored by Justice Pancholi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench had delivered almost similar 28-page long judgement dated May 8, 2025 in the State of Bihar vs. Hardeo Manda & Ors. (2025) and dismissed the State appeal of 1998 against the judgment of acquittal of 1998 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial of 1997, wherein the Trial Court had acquitted all the three respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. The judgement was authored by Justice Pancholi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench had delivered almost similar 25-page long judgement dated May 7, 2025 in the State of Bihar vs. Harinandan Singh & Ors. (2025) and dismissed the State appeal of 1999 against the judgment of acquittal of 1997 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial of 1994, wherein the Trial Court had acquitted all the 13 respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. The judgement was authored by Justice Pancholi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench had delivered almost similar 13-page long judgement dated May 6, 2025 in the State of Bihar vs. Shashi Bhushan Pal & Ors. (2025) and dismissed the State appeal of 2024 against the judgment of acquittal of 2024 by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial of 2023 for the offence under for the offences registered under Sections 302, Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, wherein the Trial Court had acquitted all the four respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. The judgement was authored by Justice Pancholi.
The prosecution story was based on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Meera Kumari who has been examined as PW-4 in course of trial. In her fardbeyan recorded on October 1, 2022 at 13:45 hours (afternoon) by one Pramod Kumar Tiwari, Sub-Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police Station, she alleged that on September 30, 2022 at about 10:00 P.M. in the night, the informant heard the sound of firing coming from the dalan and when she went there, she saw (1) Amarjeet Pal @ Chotu (2) Ramjeet Pal, (3) Indrajeet Pal, all three sons of Shiv Person Pal and (4) Shashi Bhushan Pal, son of Heera Lal Pal were fleeing away from the dalan. She also alleged that when the informant went inside the dalan, she saw her father’s elder brother was restless and was in a pool of blood. When she shouted, the people assembled there and they took him to Sadar Hospital, Ara for treatment where after treatment he was referred to Paras Hospital, Patna for better treatment. It was further alleged that the reason of this occurrence is that eight days ago, when the work of boundary wall of her dalan three sons came there armed with lathi-danda and started abusing and stopped the work. They had also threatened them of dire consequences if they start the work of boundary wall. The informant alleged that with an intention to usurp the land, the said accused persons had shot at her elder father in his abdomen.
The High Court recorded that A.P.P. submitted that the "appellant/informant/victim has not challenged the order dated September 24, 2024 passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal till today. Thus, when the same judgment and order rendered by the learned Trial Court has not been interfered by this Court and when the said order has attained finality, we are of the view that the present appeal is also required to be dismissed. We have also independently examined the evidence led by the prosecution and we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order." Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment