IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

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

 

Similar News