Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case

22 November 2024 9:24 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Convictions under Sections 302/34 and 120B IPC overturned; Court stresses necessity of corroborative evidence beyond motive.
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has overturned the convictions of Gauri Shankar Nath Tiwary and others in a 1993 murder case, emphasizing the insufficiency of motive alone for securing a conviction. The bench, comprising Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath, delivered the judgment on 14th May 2024, acquitting the appellants who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Braj Kishore Nath Tiwari.
The case originated from the murder of Braj Kishore Nath Tiwari on 22nd August 1993. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, driven by various motives including political rivalry and disputes over temple management, conspired and executed the murder. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution’s case was based solely on alleged motives without substantial evidence linking them to the crime.
The court affirmed that the deceased, Braj Kishore Nath Tiwari, died a homicidal death due to injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon. “The post-mortem report and the testimony of Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu conclusively establish the homicidal nature of the death,” the bench noted. Injuries included multiple incised wounds on the head, consistent with a fatal assault.
Despite establishing the homicidal death, the court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence directly linking the appellants to the crime. The court emphasized that “motive alone, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.” The lack of eyewitnesses, the absence of incriminating articles, and no evidence of the appellants being last seen with the deceased contributed significantly to their acquittal.
Several prosecution witnesses attributed different motives to the appellants, ranging from political succession desires to temple fund embezzlement and personal vendettas. However, the court remarked, “Motive, however strong, cannot be the sole basis for a murder conviction. There must be corroborative evidence that links the accused to the crime.”
The court discussed the principles of evaluating evidence in murder cases, reiterating the necessity of corroborative evidence to support convictions based on motive. “The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of their purported motives without substantial corroborative evidence,” the judgment stated.
Justice Ratnaker Bhengra observed, “Motive alone, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The prosecution must provide concrete evidence that directly links the accused to the commission of the crime.”
The High Court’s decision to acquit the appellants underscores the judiciary’s adherence to the principles of criminal justice, particularly the requirement of corroborative evidence beyond motive in murder cases. This judgment sets a precedent emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence for convictions, potentially impacting future prosecutions in similar cases.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024
 

Similar News