NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Quality of Eyewitness Testimony More Important Than Quantity: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment in Bihar Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today upheld the life imprisonment sentence of Maheshwari Yadav and another appellant in a high-profile murder case from Bihar. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings, stating that the "quality of eyewitness testimony is more important than quantity."

This ruling comes in the case of Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2023 INSC 1068), where the appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34, indicating a shared common intention in the crime. The appellants had challenged their conviction and life imprisonment sentence, arguing that the eyewitness testimonies were unreliable and insufficient.

However, the Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, laid stress on the credibility and quality of the eyewitnesses, who were mostly close relatives of the deceased. "After having made closer scrutiny, we find their versions are of a very sterling quality," the bench observed, dismissing the appellants' contention regarding the supposed unreliability of the eyewitness accounts.

The Court also addressed the issue of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, affirming that the presence, active participation, and shared intention with the main accused at the crime scene were sufficient grounds for the appellants' conviction. The judgment clarifies that vicarious liability under Section 34 does not necessarily require a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation and can be established during the occurrence.

This verdict is significant in highlighting the judicial perspective on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, particularly when the witnesses are related to the victim. The Supreme Court's emphasis on the quality of evidence over the quantity sets a precedent for future cases where the testimonies of a few credible witnesses may outweigh the absence of a larger number of witnesses.

As the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it directed the appellants to surrender before the trial court within one month to undergo the remaining sentence. This ruling reinforces the Court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring justice in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: 13 December 2023

Maheshwari Yadav & Anr.  VS The State of Bihar   

 

Latest Legal News