Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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