CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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