MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case

27 September 2024 10:20 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling, acquitted all seven accused in Vijay Singh @ Vijay K. Sharma v. State of Bihar, overturning the Patna High Court’s 2015 conviction. The appellants, including Vijay Singh, had been convicted of abduction and murder under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC in a 1985 incident involving Neelam, a resident of Munger, Bihar. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' involvement beyond reasonable doubt, citing unreliable witness testimonies and a lack of credible evidence.

The case stems from the alleged abduction and murder of Neelam on August 30, 1985, during a property dispute. The Trial Court convicted five of the accused, acquitting two (A-6, A-7), but the Patna High Court overturned the acquittals, sentencing all seven to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged this reversal, arguing that the High Court improperly re-evaluated the evidence and relied on inconsistent witness testimonies.

Unreliable Witness Testimonies: The Supreme Court criticized the credibility of the prosecution’s key witnesses (PW2, PW4, and PW5), noting inconsistencies in their presence at the scene of the crime. The Court found that their testimonies were likely fabricated to strengthen the prosecution's case.

Doubtful Circumstantial Evidence: The Court expressed doubt over whether Neelam was even residing in the house from which she was allegedly abducted, citing a lack of personal belongings or corroborative testimony from cohabitants.

Post-Mortem Conflicts: The post-mortem report suggested that Neelam’s death occurred earlier than claimed, conflicting with the prosecution's timeline and further weakening their case.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, writing for the bench, emphasized that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittals of A-6 and A-7 without finding any legal flaws in the Trial Court's decision. The Court held:

“The prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”​

The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and circumstantial facts, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. As a result, the conviction of all seven appellants was overturned, and they were acquitted of all charges.

The Supreme Court’s decision brings closure to a nearly four-decade-old case, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and the need for courts to avoid speculative conclusions in criminal matters. The acquittal underscores the requirement for the prosecution to meet a high burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Date of Decision: 25-09-2024

Vijay Singh @ Vijay K. Sharma v. State of Bihar

 

Latest Legal News