Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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