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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer is Fatal to Prosecution Case: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man in Wife's Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has acquitted Jumed Khan, who was previously convicted for the murder of his wife under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This ruling underscores the crucial role of the Investigating Officer’s testimony in cases hinging on circumstantial evidence, with the court emphasizing that the non-examination of the primary Investigating Officer was a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case.

The appeal challenged Jumed Khan’s conviction for the murder of his wife and subsequent destruction of evidence. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including motive linked to familial strife and the discovery of the body. However, the primary issue revolved around the absence of direct evidence connecting Khan to the crime and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

The High Court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence in detail. It noted that while certain aspects like motive and the discovery of the body were established, they failed to directly implicate the appellant in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Importance of Investigating Officer’s Testimony: The judgment pointed out the crucial role of the Investigating Officer in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The failure to examine the primary Investigating Officer was seen as a significant oversight, detrimental to the prosecution’s case.

Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: Drawing upon the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda judgment, the court emphasized the necessity for a complete and unbroken chain of evidence pointing conclusively to the guilt of the accused, a criterion not met in this case.

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: The court reiterated the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision:  The High Court, observing the gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the critical non-examination of the Investigating Officer, overturned the conviction and sentence, leading to Khan’s acquittal.

Date of Decision: 19th March 2024.

Jumed Khan vs. The State of Jharkhand,

Latest Legal News