Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana 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