MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

In the Absence of Motive and Conclusive Evidence, ‘Last Seen’ Theory Fails to Establish Guilt: Supreme Court Acquits in Circumstantial Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Arun Shankar in a murder case, underscoring the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to conclusively prove guilt.

The apex court emphasized the principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence, drawing from the landmark Sharad Birdhichand Sarda judgment. The Court highlighted that for conviction, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent solely with the accused’s guilt, forming a complete chain pointing towards no conclusion other than guilt.

Arun Shankar was convicted for the murder of Sushildhar Dubey based on circumstantial evidence including the ‘last seen’ theory, recovery of the murder weapon, and medical evidence. The central issue revolved around the reliability and conclusiveness of this evidence, particularly in the absence of a clear motive.

 

Weak ‘Last Seen’ Theory: Regular interactions and absence of a motive or altercation between Shankar and Dubey weakened the last seen theory.

Unproved Weapon Recovery: Testimonies of key witnesses failed to conclusively establish the recovery of the murder weapon at Shankar’s instance.

Alternative Theory of Accidental Death: The possibility of Dubey’s accidental death was supported by the presence of glass pieces at the crime scene and medical opinions indicating such injuries could be caused by glass.

The Supreme Court found the circumstances did not conclusively point to Shankar’s guilt, allowing for reasonable doubt. Consequently, Shankar was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, and his bail bonds were cancelled

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

Arun Shankar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Latest Legal News