“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank 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 POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

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