Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Eyewitness Testimonies Are Neither Reliable Nor Credible If They Are At Variance With The Physical Facts Of The Case – Supreme Court Acquits In Murder Appeal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted Jagvir Singh, who had been previously convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Apex Court’s bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta found critical inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts which led to the acquittal.

Legal Context: The judgment arose from an appeal against the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the trial court’s conviction of Singh for the alleged murder of Sanju. The primary evidence against Singh was based on eyewitness testimony, which the Supreme Court scrutinized thoroughly.

Facts and Issues: The case involved the fatal shooting of Sanju, alleged by the prosecution to have been carried out by Singh and another accused, Omkar, from the roof of Omkar’s house. Eyewitnesses claimed they saw the accused firing at the victim. However, these accounts were challenged on the grounds of physical and logical improbabilities.

Eyewitness Credibility: Justice Mehta, in his judgment, pointed out that the so-called eyewitnesses, including Ram Prakash (PW-1), Sultan Singh (PW-2), and Ram Naresh (PW-5), provided testimony that conflicted with the physical layout and possibilities of the site where the murder took place.

Physical Impossibilities: The court noted discrepancies such as the distance between the locations of the accused and the victim at the time of the shooting, which made it improbable for the eyewitnesses to see the incident from their claimed positions.

Inconsistencies in Testimony: The testimonies of the witnesses were found to be at variance with each other and with the physical facts of the case. For instance, some witnesses claimed to have seen the shooting from positions where visibility of the event was impossible.

Unreliable Narratives: The Apex Court found that the narrative constructed by the prosecution was filled with inherent improbabilities that rendered the eyewitness testimonies unreliable.

Decision: The Supreme Court, citing the principles laid down in Selveraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, concluded that the eyewitness accounts were not credible and acquitted Singh. The Court underscored the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, especially when the liberty of the accused is at stake.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024.

Jagvir Singh vs. State of U.P.

Similar News