Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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