Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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