Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

ACQUITTAL IN RAPE CASE - LACK OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND THE NON-EXAMINATION OF A KEY WITNESS – SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant, Davinder Singh, in a highly anticipated judgment delivered by Justice M. M. Sundresh. The court, while setting aside the appellant's convictions under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasized the lack of convincing evidence and the non-examination of a key witness. The judgment, rendered on June 22, 2023, carries significant implications for criminal cases involving similar circumstances.

Justice Sundresh, in his ruling, highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the evidence and ensuring the presence of material witnesses. Referring to the non-examination of a crucial eyewitness, the court noted that the prosecution's case appeared doubtful. The judgment cited previous court decisions, emphasizing the need to draw adverse inferences against the prosecution when material witnesses are withheld. The court further pointed out that the non-examination of the witness, who could have shed light on the genesis of the incident, weakened the prosecution's case.

The appellant's counsel had raised various submissions challenging the prosecution's version of events. They argued that there was no recovery of the alleged weapon, no external injuries were found on the prosecutrix, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The counsel further highlighted the absence of a motive and questioned the credibility of the complainant. The court acknowledged these concerns, stating that the evidence presented did not conform to the degree of probability required for conviction.

The judgment also criticized the High Court's analysis, highlighting its factual errors and cursory examination of the evidence. The court observed that the High Court had incorrectly attributed the offense under Section 376 IPC to the uncle's residence of the prosecutrix, contrary to her own testimony. Additionally, the court noted that the subsequent compromise between the parties, which occurred after the complainant's death, was not a significant factor to consider in the present appeal.

With the acquittal of the appellant, the Supreme Court's decision carries far-reaching implications. The ruling emphasizes the importance of thoroughly evaluating the evidence, examining material witnesses, and ensuring the credibility of testimonies. It serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on a high degree of probability and a conscientious analysis of the available facts.

Supreme Court has set aside the convictions against the appellant, acquitting him of all charges. The court's ruling underscores the need for robust evidence and the examination of material witnesses in criminal proceedings, serving as a landmark decision in the Indian legal landscape.

Date of Decision: June 22, 2023

Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News