Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"Supreme Court Acquits Convicts in Murder Case, Cites 'Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts' and 'Delayed FIR' as Grounds for Acquittal"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellants previously convicted for the murder of Ellahabadiya alias Vijay. The bench, comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, cited "inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts" and a "delayed FIR" as significant factors leading to the acquittal.

The appellants had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by both the High Court and the Trial Court. However, the Supreme Court found several gaps in the prosecution's case, which led to the overturning of the previous judgments.

Justice Manoj Misra, in his observation, stated, "The prosecution has not been able to convincingly prove the genesis of the crime as also the manner in which the murder took place and by whom." The court pointed out that the evidence led by the prosecution gives rise to a "strong probability of the killing being a consequence of mob action on the deceased for his alleged involvement with a lady of the village."

The court also questioned the credibility of the First Information Report (FIR), which was lodged the next day by a village chowkidar from a neighboring village who was not an eyewitness to the incident. "When an FIR is delayed, in the absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out the possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story," the judgment read.

Another significant observation was related to the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the main eyewitnesses, identified as PW-2 and PW-6. The court found their accounts unreliable due to contradictions and failure to explain key aspects of the case.

The court concluded by giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt, stating, "Due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, delayed FIR, and lack of conclusive evidence, the appellants are acquitted and given the benefit of the doubt."

The decision has been hailed as a significant one, emphasizing the importance of meticulous examination of evidence and witness testimonies in criminal cases.

Date of Decision:  September 05, 2023

HARILAL ETC. vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News