Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

"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