Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Acquits Four in 2007 Murder Case Citing Lack of Corroborative Evidence and Doubts in Dying Declaration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted four individuals convicted of murder in 2007. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, overturned the previous rulings of both the Session Court and the High Court, which had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case pertains to the murder of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav, which occurred in 2007. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on an oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his family members and the testimony of an eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13). However, the Supreme Court raised substantial doubts regarding the reliability of this declaration and the eyewitness testimony.

The Court observed that the medical evidence suggested that the deceased’s injuries were severe enough to cast doubt on his ability to make a dying declaration. Additionally, the testimony of Rahul Yadav (PW-13) was scrutinized due to his criminal background and absence from the scene in initial accounts. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for corroborative evidence to support such declarations, which was lacking in this case.

The judgment also noted that other eyewitnesses, who were initially claimed to have witnessed the incident, were declared hostile and their testimonies were found to be unreliable.

In their ruling, the Justices emphasized the importance of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. “We are conscious of the fact that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt... the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons,” the judgment read.

Following this judgment, the accused have been acquitted, and their bail bonds have been discharged, marking a significant turn in a case that has spanned over a decade and a half.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2024

JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

 

Latest Legal News