Thirty-One Years After The Conviction, The Appeal Succeeds
A 1992 case, convicted in June 1995, appealed the same month, and decided this September. The Division Bench found the evidence never supported the verdict.
The Court held that on the evidence it was too hazardous to convict the appellants, and that the least the trial court ought to have done was accord them the benefit of reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals succeeded, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants acquitted, their bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.
- ‘Too hazardous to convict’ is the phrase, and it describes evidence that cannot carry a verdict.
- The trial court should have seen it — the Court framed the failure as one the trial court could have avoided.
- Thirty-one years between the conviction of June 1995 and this judgment.
- Bonds cancelled, sureties discharged, the appellants having been on bail.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Patna
- Bench
- Justice MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA, Justice MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
- Citation
- Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 1995
- Case
- Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 1995
- Decided
- 1 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; conviction and sentences set aside, appellants acquitted
What the evidence would not bear
On the evidence on record as discussed, the least the trial court ought to have done was to accord the appellants the benefit of reasonable doubt, because it was too hazardous to convict them.
The benefit of such a situation ought to have been given to the appellants.
The conclusion
The prosecution failed to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The appeals succeeded. The conviction by the judgment under appeal and the consequential sentences were set aside, the appellants held not guilty and acquitted under the benefit of doubt.
The appellants being on bail, their bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged, and the lower court record was directed to be returned with a copy of the judgment.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
What does 'too hazardous to convict' mean?
That the evidence is not safe enough to support a conviction, so the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
How long can a criminal appeal remain pending?
This one was filed in 1995 against a June 1995 conviction and decided in September 2026.
Arguing that a conviction was unsafe on the record
- Frame it as what the trial court should have done, not merely as a different reading of the evidence.
- Identify the specific hazards — contradictions, gaps, improbability — rather than asserting weakness generally.
- In very old appeals, secure the lower court record early; everything depends on it.
- Ask for the sureties to be discharged with the bonds.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Patna, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 1995, decided 1 September 2026 by Justice MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA, Justice MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Patna and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in