Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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