Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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