Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Investigating Officer Failed to Narrate Contents of the Disclosure Statement Properly, Nor Proved It Legally: Supreme Court Acquits in Robbery Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an individual previously found guilty of robbery under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing significant procedural errors and evidentiary flaws in the handling of the disclosure statement used against him. Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta presided over the appeal, overturning the earlier rulings of both the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The apex court's decision primarily focused on the admissibility and reliability of the confession and recovery of stolen items, which were critical to the initial conviction.

Hansraj, the appellant, was accused of assaulting Bhagu Bai and robbing her jewelry on December 12, 1998. The police based their case on a disclosure statement allegedly made by Hansraj, which led to the recovery of the stolen items. However, initial identification by the complainant did not occur, and she was unable to visually identify her assailant at the time of the incident.

Evidence of Recovery and Identification: The evidence regarding the recovery and identification of stolen items was critically examined, with the court finding significant legal deficiencies. Justice Mehta emphasized that the identification process was marred by procedural flaws and lacked credibility.

Admissibility of Disclosure Statement: The Supreme Court highlighted major shortcomings in how the disclosure statement was handled. "The Investigating Officer failed to narrate contents of the disclosure statement properly, nor proved it legally," Justice Gavai criticized, pointing to a lack of proper authentication and corroboration.

Procedural Lapses: The handling and authentication of the recovered items were also questioned, as the court noted failures in ensuring the security and integrity of evidence crucial for a fair trial.

Decision: Due to these procedural and evidentiary errors, the Supreme Court acquitted Hansraj, stating that the presented evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court ordered his immediate release, provided he is not required for another case.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Hansraj Vs. State of M.P.

 

Latest Legal News