Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Minor Discrepancies in Witness Accounts Do Not Meet Standard of Proof Required to Overturn an Acquittal- Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Kidnapping Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of two individuals in a kidnapping case citing that the minor discrepancies in witness accounts do not meet the standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Amarjot Bhatti.

The key legal issue revolved around the appeal against the acquittal of the respondents who were previously charged under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abducting and confining the complainant by tying him with ropes.

The appeal was filed by the State of Punjab following the acquittal of Harwinder Singh and another respondent by the trial court. The trial court had based its decision on the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses, along with the lack of corroborative evidence.

Credibility of Witness Testimonies: The High Court noted significant variations in the witnesses' accounts, including the medical evidence, which did not corroborate the alleged severity of confinement or assault. Justice Bhatti highlighted, "The medical evidence presented only showed minor abrasions, inconsistent with claims of being tied and assaulted."

Lack of Corroboration: The court pointed out the absence of independent witnesses from the busy thoroughfare area, which could have corroborated the incident.

Review of Evidence: The bench thoroughly reviewed the entire evidence and emphasized that discrepancies that do not go to the root of the prosecution's case should not be grounds for conviction. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors., the bench stated, "Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence."

Analysis of the Trial Court's Judgment: The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the evidence against the accused was unconvincing and did not fulfill the standard required to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision of the Judgment: The appeal by the State of Punjab was dismissed, and the acquittal of Harwinder Singh and the other respondent was upheld.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024

State of Punjab vs. Harwinder Singh and Another

Latest Legal News