Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Serious Doubt Arises From the Conduct of Eyewitnesses And Recovery From Open Space: Supreme Court Acquits Man of Murder Charges Due to Inadequate Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Jasobanta Sahu, who was earlier convicted for the murder of his uncle over a property dispute. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, found critical flaws in the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the procedural handling of the confession and recovery of the murder weapon.

The case centered around the conviction of Jasobanta Sahu under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering his uncle. The initial conviction by the Trial Court under Section 304 Part I was escalated to Section 302 IPC by the High Court, relying heavily on eyewitness accounts and an extra-judicial confession.

On October 9, 1988, a report was filed claiming that Laxminarayan Sahu had been murdered following a longstanding property dispute. The police arrested Jasobanta Sahu, and investigations led to the recovery of a knife purportedly used in the murder. Eyewitness accounts from PW1 and PW2 were pivotal in the initial convictions. However, discrepancies in their testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the confession and weapon recovery were critical in the appeal.

Eyewitness Testimony Reliability: The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, raising doubts about their presence at the crime scene. Their delayed statements and contradictory accounts further weakened the prosecution's case.

Extra-judicial Confession and Recovery of Weapon: The Supreme Court scrutinized the extra-judicial confession to PW6, highlighting its non-spontaneous nature and the dubious circumstances surrounding the confession and weapon recovery. The justices remarked, "The evidence of the I.O. and the Panch witnesses i.e., PW5 and PW20, would reveal that the recovery of the weapon was made from an open place... As such, much reliance cannot be placed on such recovery."

Judicial Analysis: Justice Gavai pointed out, "A serious doubt arises from the conduct of PW1 and PW2 as to whether they were really the eyewitnesses to the incident or not." The Court found that the evidence presented did not meet the rigorous standards of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions by both the Trial Court and the High Court. Jasobanta Sahu was acquitted of all charges due to the unreliability of key evidence and procedural errors in handling the case.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Jasobanta Sahu vs. State of Orissa

Similar News