Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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