High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Acquittal In Murder Case: Absconding Not Necessarily Indicate Guilt, As Fear Of Wrongful Arrest Can Cause Even Innocent Individuals To Flee: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Rajveer Singh, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his brother Nem Singh in 1999. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Rajiv Gupta and Shiv Shanker Prasad, highlights the prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence.

Background:

The case originated from an incident on August 4, 1999, when Nem Singh was found brutally murdered outside his home in Agra. The initial FIR, lodged by Nem Singh's son Surendra Kumar, reported the murder as committed by unknown assailants. Rajveer Singh, Nem Singh's brother, was later implicated based on suspicions arising from family property disputes. The trial court convicted Rajveer Singh in 2005, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Key Points of the Judgment:

Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient:

The court emphasized that the prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The court reiterated the legal principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing conclusively to the guilt of the accused, which was not established in this case.

Failure to Prove Motive:

The alleged motive was a property dispute. However, the prosecution failed to provide consistent and credible evidence to support this motive, thereby weakening the case against Rajveer Singh.

Inadmissible Recovery Evidence:

The court found that the recovery of the alleged murder weapon (an axe) and blood-stained clothes did not meet the legal standards for admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court noted procedural lapses in the way the disclosure statements and recoveries were handled.

Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C.:

Crucial recovery evidence was not presented to Rajveer Singh during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), violating his right to a fair defense.

Abscondence Not Conclusive of Guilt:

The court observed that absconding does not necessarily indicate guilt, as fear of wrongful arrest can cause even innocent individuals to flee.

Court Observations and Analysis:

The judgment extensively discussed the principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It referred to landmark cases like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh to underscore the stringent requirements for such convictions. The court criticized the trial court's reliance on weak and legally flawed evidence, stressing that suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also highlighted procedural failures, particularly in how the recovery of evidence was handled and the failure to properly examine the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These lapses significantly undermined the prosecution's case.

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court's judgment underscores the importance of rigorous adherence to legal standards and procedural fairness in criminal trials. Rajveer Singh's acquittal serves as a reminder of the high burden of proof required in criminal cases, especially those reliant on circumstantial evidence. The court ordered the cancellation of his bail bonds and discharge of sureties, with compliance required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. within 15 days.

 

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

Rajveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Similar News