Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Faulty Investigation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 April 2023 , In a recent judgement MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP Vs. STATE , the Supreme Court acquitted the accused who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his cousin. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and criticized the investigation conducted by the police.

The case, Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, arose from an appeal against the judgment dated January 14, 2016, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2013. The High Court had upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for the murder of his wife.

The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, with the prosecution claiming that the accused had a motive to kill his wife, and that he was the last person to be seen with her before her death. The trial court, after considering the evidence, had acquitted the accused of all charges. However, on appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the conviction. The Court criticized the investigation conducted by the police, and held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted several infirmities in the investigation, such as the failure to conduct a proper site inspection and the lack of credibility of the key witness.

The Court also emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial investigation, and held that the investigating officer had not met his obligations. The Court relied on several earlier decisions to underscore the principles governing criminal investigations, and held that the investigation should be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance from either of the parties.

The Court further held that in a case involving circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and that all the evidence must conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused.

The Supreme Court referred to several earlier decisions, including Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135, Bhagwant Singh v. Commission of Police (1983) 3 SCC 344, and Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192, to underscore the principles governing criminal investigations.

The Court concluded that the High Court had erred in holding the prosecution to have established the case, and allowed the appeal. The accused was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP Vs. STATE

Latest Legal News