Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Inconsistent Evidence and Doubts Lead to Acquittal in Murder Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment delivered on October 9, 2023, a two-judge bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court of India acquitted the accused in a criminal appeal that hinged on testimony, motive, and CCTV footage. The judgment, characterized by meticulous scrutiny and a focus on inconsistencies, marks a significant development in the administration of justice.

The case, which had led to the convictions of several individuals in the lower courts, came under intense judicial scrutiny in the Supreme Court. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence to be of the highest quality, raising questions about the reliability of the prosecution's case.

"COURT OBSERVATION: From the video clips, the faces of assailants and complainants are not decipherable," noted the bench, shedding doubt on the authenticity and clarity of the key CCTV footage that had been relied upon to secure the convictions.

The prosecution's case rested heavily on the testimony of PW-9, whose statements were found to be inconsistent and contradictory. The witness had not named the appellants in the First Information Report (FIR) and had failed to identify one of the accused as the driver of a motorcycle. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case.

Additionally, the bench found flaws in the investigation itself. The failure to record the statement of a crucial witness, Suraj, and the lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's position.

The court also scrutinized confessional statements recorded while the accused were in police custody, emphasizing that such statements should adhere to specific legal provisions. The bench cited Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and ruled that these statements were inadmissible in court.

Furthermore, the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with common object and vicarious liability, was found to be lacking. The prosecution failed to establish that the appellants shared a common object with the alleged unlawful assembly and were aware of the likely offences.

Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Sessions Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants were acquitted of all alleged offences and ordered to be released forthwith.

Date of Decision: October 09, 2023

NARESH @ NEHRU vs STATE OF HARYANA       

Latest Legal News