Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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