District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Acquittal in Murder Case: Identification of the Appellant by PW-6 in the Court is Not Free from Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of Mohd. Rijwan, who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by both the Sessions Court and the High Court.

The bench, comprised of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the verdict today, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Court highlighted several gaps in the prosecution's case, primarily based on circumstantial evidence.

Commenting on the crucial aspect of witness identification, Justice Abhay S. Oka observed, "the identification of the appellant by PW-6 in the court is not free from reasonable doubt." The Court noted that instead of holding a test identification parade, the key witness, PW-6, was shown the appellant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, which makes his courtroom identification doubtful.

The prosecution's case was primarily anchored on two points: that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together and that the deceased's body was recovered at the appellant's instance. The Court remarked that "the important circumstance of the last seen together has not been established," thereby dismantling the foundational elements of the prosecution's argument.

Another key gap in the prosecution’s case was its failure to examine Hari Chand Sharma, an important witness who could have supported the 'last seen together' theory. "The prosecution has offered no explanation for the failure to examine this important witness," Justice Oka noted.

The Court concluded that "the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt," and therefore acquitted Mohd. Rijwan. His bail bonds have been subsequently canceled.

Legal experts view this judgement as a significant affirmation of the need for meticulous scrutiny in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

The judgement does not specify any referred cases or representing advocates.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023.

Mohd. Rijwan vs State of Haryana               

Latest Legal News