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 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

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