Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Acquittal In Murder Case - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain Of Events Is Not Complete - Presence Of  Eyewitness Doubtful: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of six individuals accused of murder, underscoring the principle of extending the “benefit of doubt” to the accused in criminal proceedings.

The apex court, in its judgment in the case of Chhote Lal vs. Rohtash & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2490 of 2014), upheld the decision of the High Court which had earlier acquitted the six accused. The case pertained to the murder of Kishan Sarup, with the initial conviction handed down by the Court of Sessions under Sections 148, 201/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Pankaj Mithal, emphasized the importance of incontrovertible evidence in criminal cases, stating, “The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness.” This observation highlights the court’s stance on the necessity of conclusive evidence for upholding a conviction.

The appellant, Chhote Lal, who is also the father of the deceased, was the sole eyewitness to the initial assault but not to the actual murder or the burning of the victim’s body. The court expressed concerns about the reliability of his testimony, noting potential biases due to long-standing enmity with the accused group.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court remarked, “In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of an eyewitness is also doubtful.” This statement formed the basis for the decision, reinforcing the legal principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case did not feature any notable referred cases or specific advocates representing the parties. However, the ruling sets a precedent in emphasizing the rigorous standards required for criminal conviction in India.

The dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court in this case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice is based on solid and indisputable evidence, a cornerstone of the legal system.

Date – 14-Dec-2023

CHHOTE LAL VS ROHTASH & ORS.

Latest Legal News