Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"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