UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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