Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Acquits Appellants, Cites “Benefit of Doubt” in Land Dispute Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellants in a murder case, stating that they are entitled to the “benefit of doubt.” The judgement, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, sets aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.

The case, Criminal Appeal No.1235 of 2011, involved a dispute over land ownership between the accused and the deceased, who were close relatives. The incident occurred on 9th February 1997, when the deceased, along with his wife and two children, was attacked by the six accused near their village. The deceased was assaulted with various weapons, leading to his untimely death.

 Throughout the trial, the prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of the deceased’s wife (PW­1), who was the only witness of fact examined. However, the Court highlighted several discrepancies in the witness statements and raised concerns about the absence of key witnesses, including Babu Ram and Tejpal, who were named in the First Information Report (FIR) but were not examined during the proceedings.

Additionally, no recovery of the weapons used in the crime was made, further raising doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case. The defense put forth arguments suggesting false implication, which the Court considered in light of the lack of substantial evidence.

The Court’s judgment noted, “Enmity between the parties is a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. The accused could have committed the crime. On the other hand, it could be a case of false implication.” This observation played a crucial role in the Court’s decision to grant the appellants the benefit of doubt.

The conduct of the witnesses during the assault also raised eyebrows, with PW­1 and others allegedly standing away while the incident unfolded and failing to intervene or seek help. Moreover, the FIR was lodged with a delay of a couple of hours, and the special report to the Magistrate and superiors was sent two days later, prompting the defense to suggest that the FIR was anti-timed.

Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants, Ram Kumar and Ram Pal. The Court canceled their bail bonds and discharged their sureties.

 

DATE OF DECISION: 19th July 2023

RAM KUMAR & ORS. vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND      

Similar News