Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

Guilty Do Not Walk Free on Technicalities: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants, Calls for Dependable Code of Investigation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that could set new standards for police investigation and admissibility of evidence, the Supreme Court of India called for a "consistent and dependable code of investigation." The Court, consisting of Honorable Justices B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala, and Sanjay Kumar, made it clear that gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case would extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants, leading to their acquittal.

The judgment, delivered on September 21, 2023, focused on a murder case and significantly elaborated on when the accused can be said to be in 'police custody' for the admissibility of confessions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. "An individual must be formally 'accused of an offence' and in 'police custody' for Section 27 of the Evidence Act to apply," the Court clarified. Any confessions made without attaining this legal status would be inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

Justice B.R. Gavai was quoted as saying, "The manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants." [Para 38]

The Court also emphasized the need for scientific police investigations. It mentioned past reports criticizing the current state of police investigations in India and stressed that a dependable code of investigation should be established. "It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country," stated the judgment. [Para 38]

Ultimately, citing "numerous gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case," the Court concluded that "the appellants must be given the benefit of doubt, leading to their acquittal." [Para 38]

The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, particularly on how police investigations are conducted and how evidence is considered admissible in court.

Date of Decision: September 21, 2023

Rajesh & Anr.vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

 

Latest Legal News