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 When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case 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 Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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