Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Murder| Enmity is a Double-Edged Weapon: High Court Acquits Jog Singh in 1986 Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Acquittal in 1986 Nagaur murder case overturns conviction due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and lack of corroborative evidence.

The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted Jog Singh, previously convicted for the 1986 murder of Ratan Singh, citing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni, underscores the importance of credible evidence and the scrutiny required for testimonies of interested witnesses.

Facts of the Case:Jog Singh was accused of murdering Ratan Singh on October 20, 1986, in Village Barathal Kallan, District Nagaur. According to the prosecution, Jog Singh, armed with a 12 bore gun, approached the field where Ratan Singh and his relatives were working, challenged Ratan Singh, and then shot him multiple times. Afterward, he allegedly set fire to the complainant's Dhani (hamlet) before fleeing. The incident was witnessed by Khag Singh (PW-1) and his sons, Dul Singh (PW-2) and Labu Singh (PW-3), who reported the crime to the police. Jog Singh was charged under Sections 302, 436, and 447 of the IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act, and was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur, in 1989.

Eyewitness Testimonies:The court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the key eyewitnesses—Khag Singh, Dul Singh, and Labu Singh. The defense successfully argued that the witnesses, all relatives of the deceased and hostile towards the appellant, were not present at the scene during the incident. The lack of physical evidence, such as the absence of tools and the bundles of shrubs they claimed to be cutting, further undermined their credibility. "The presence of these three alleged eye-witnesses at the spot is not found trustworthy on the basis of the purpose for which they were citing their presence at the scene of the incident," the court noted.

Motive and Enmity:The court acknowledged the longstanding enmity between the families due to a boundary dispute, which could have motivated false accusations. The justices emphasized that while enmity can drive criminal acts, it can equally lead to wrongful implications. "Enmity, undoubtedly, is a double-edged weapon; it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false implication," the judgment stated.

Prosecution's Case and Investigation Flaws:The judgment highlighted the prosecution's failure to provide a consistent and reliable narrative. The investigating officer's testimony did not support the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene, and the site inspection revealed no evidence of the activities described by the witnesses. Additionally, the testimony of another witness, Jerup @ Jayrupram, who initially claimed not to have witnessed the shooting but later turned into an eyewitness, further complicated the prosecution's case. The court found his statements unreliable due to significant alterations and personal enmity with the accused.

The court reiterated that for a conviction in a murder case, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through reliable and trustworthy evidence. The bench criticized the trial court for accepting the prosecution's evidence without proper scrutiny. "Mere production of the evidence would not lead to conviction. It is its reliability and trustworthiness that matters," the court emphasized.

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni remarked, "There is no credible and trustworthy evidence to come to the conclusion that it was the appellant Jog Singh who committed the offence." Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati added, "The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record properly."

The Rajasthan High Court's judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on robust and credible evidence. This decision serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required for criminal convictions and the careful evaluation needed for testimonies from interested parties. The acquittal of Jog Singh underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is served based on concrete evidence.

Case Title: Jog Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Latest Legal News