Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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

Similar News