Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

Identification for the first time in Court without holding ‘Test Identification Parade’ creates serious doubt: Supreme Court Acquits In Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement dated April 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh of all charges in a 2006 criminal incident citing doubts over witness identification procedures and evidence credibility. The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta overturned previous convictions by the High Court and trial court, which had sustained multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other statutes against the appellant.

The appeal centered on the legal validity of witness identification and the subsequent handling of evidence in the case against Suresh, who had been accused of participating in a violent attack that led to one death and severe injuries to another in Kerala.

On March 6, 2006, a group allegedly attacked a video shop, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to another, identified as Ajeesh (PW-2). The group was accused of forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and bombs. Suresh was later arrested in 2008, and despite multiple charges, the reliability of witness testimonies and evidence recovery was contested.

Witness Testimony and Identification: The Supreme Court highlighted significant delays in witness testimonies and pointed out that the appellant, Suresh, was identified in court for the first time years after the incident without a prior test identification parade, casting doubt on the identification's authenticity.

Evidence Recovery: The credibility of the recovery of an iron rod, purportedly used in the crime, was questioned. The court noted implausibility in the preservation of blood stains over an extended period which was subject to environmental exposure, including two monsoon seasons.

Motive and Misidentification: The court noted inconsistencies in the appellant's description and the absence of a direct motive linked to him, suggesting the possibility of mistaken identity.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier judgements. The court acquitted Suresh of all charges, directing his immediate release unless required in another case. This decision underscores the necessity of rigorous standards in criminal identification and evidence handling.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh Versus The State of Kerala

 

Latest Legal News