Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

"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