Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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