Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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      

Latest Legal News