Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Assault Case, Citing Lack of Clear Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Boini Mahipal and Anr. In a criminal appeal related to an assault case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar, highlighted the lack of clear evidence and failure of the prosecution to establish the appellants’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

The headline quote from the judgment, “The prosecution failed to establish clear evidence of appellants’ involvement in the assault,” succinctly captures the essence of the court’s decision.

The case revolved around the allegation that the appellants, along with other accused individuals, assaulted the deceased. However, the prosecution’s case primarily relied on witness testimonies that attributed the act of kicking the deceased solely to accused No. 1, without mentioning any overt acts by the appellants.

Justice Kumar, in the judgment, emphasized that “the witnesses consistently stated that it was accused No. 1 who kicked the deceased, and no other overt acts were attributed to the appellants.” This observation underscored the lack of evidence supporting the conviction of the appellants.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to provide any corroborative material or produce evidence of injuries sustained by the deceased’s relatives. This contributed to the court’s finding that the conviction could not be sustained without incriminating material or corroborative evidence.

The quote, “Failure to establish appellants’ participation or common intention in the assault,” encapsulates the court’s reasoning behind setting aside the conviction and ultimately acquitting the appellants.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction brings closure to the case, underscoring the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ensuring justice based on solid evidence.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2023

BOINI MAHIPAL AND ANR   vs STATE OF TELANGANA 

Latest Legal News