Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

"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