Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Cr.P.C | High Court Upholds Acquittal of Accused in 1998 Murder - False Identity and Flawed Testimony

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today acquitted all the accused in a two-decade-old murder case, stating that the prosecution had relied on "false identity and flawed testimony."

The case dated back to June 16, 1998, where Tek Chand and his brothers were attacked by multiple individuals, resulting in three deaths. Tek Chand filed the case against Ashok Yadav, Shobha Ram, Yogesh, Rakesh, and Rukamesh, accusing them of various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in their judgment, noted, "For the aforesaid reasons, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused persons who were acquitted."

Key Points in the Judgment:

The court pointed out several lapses in the prosecution's case, most notably the failure to establish the true identity of the accused. The defense was able to show that three of the accused were in jail at the time of the incident, effectively providing an alibi. "This fact reflects that the Respondent witnesses have deposed falsely with regard to the accused persons," the judgment observed.

Another significant point in the ruling was the court's observation on the prosecution's reliance on oral testimony. "In the absence of any such evidence, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-5," the court stated, making it clear that the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence to convict the accused.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred leave to appeal against the judgment. However, the court noted that the case against the accused was not strong enough and hence upheld the acquittal.

The judgment has stirred conversations around the importance of diligent prosecution and has also raised questions about how cases of such gravity can rely solely on oral testimony without substantial evidence.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2023

 TEK CHAND vs  STATE OF U P & ORS.      

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tek_Chand_Vs_NCT_22Aug23_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News