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

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