State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 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 Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Enmity is a Double-Edged Weapon: High Court Acquits Jog Singh in 1986 Murder Case

25 December 2024 12:40 PM

By: sayum


Acquittal in 1986 Nagaur murder case overturns conviction due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and lack of corroborative evidence. The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted Jog Singh, previously convicted for the 1986 murder of Ratan Singh, citing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni, underscores the importance of credible evidence and the scrutiny required for testimonies of interested witnesses.

Facts of the Case: Jog Singh was accused of murdering Ratan Singh on October 20, 1986, in Village Barathal Kallan, District Nagaur. According to the prosecution, Jog Singh, armed with a 12 bore gun, approached the field where Ratan Singh and his relatives were working, challenged Ratan Singh, and then shot him multiple times. Afterward, he allegedly set fire to the complainant's Dhani (hamlet) before fleeing. The incident was witnessed by Khag Singh (PW-1) and his sons, Dul Singh (PW-2) and Labu Singh (PW-3), who reported the crime to the police. Jog Singh was charged under Sections 302, 436, and 447 of the IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act, and was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur, in 1989.

Eyewitness Testimonies: The court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the key eyewitnesses—Khag Singh, Dul Singh, and Labu Singh. The defense successfully argued that the witnesses, all relatives of the deceased and hostile towards the appellant, were not present at the scene during the incident. The lack of physical evidence, such as the absence of tools and the bundles of shrubs they claimed to be cutting, further undermined their credibility. "The presence of these three alleged eye-witnesses at the spot is not found trustworthy on the basis of the purpose for which they were citing their presence at the scene of the incident," the court noted.

Motive and Enmity: The court acknowledged the longstanding enmity between the families due to a boundary dispute, which could have motivated false accusations. The justices emphasized that while enmity can drive criminal acts, it can equally lead to wrongful implications. "Enmity, undoubtedly, is a double-edged weapon; it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false implication," the judgment stated.

Prosecution's Case and Investigation Flaws: The judgment highlighted the prosecution's failure to provide a consistent and reliable narrative. The investigating officer's testimony did not support the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene, and the site inspection revealed no evidence of the activities described by the witnesses. Additionally, the testimony of another witness, Jerup @ Jayrupram, who initially claimed not to have witnessed the shooting but later turned into an eyewitness, further complicated the prosecution's case. The court found his statements unreliable due to significant alterations and personal enmity with the accused.

The court reiterated that for a conviction in a murder case, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through reliable and trustworthy evidence. The bench criticized the trial court for accepting the prosecution's evidence without proper scrutiny. "Mere production of the evidence would not lead to conviction. It is its reliability and trustworthiness that matters," the court emphasized.

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni remarked, "There is no credible and trustworthy evidence to come to the conclusion that it was the appellant Jog Singh who committed the offence." Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati added, "The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record properly."

The Rajasthan High Court's judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on robust and credible evidence. This decision serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required for criminal convictions and the careful evaluation needed for testimonies from interested parties. The acquittal of Jog Singh underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is served based on concrete evidence.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Latest Legal News