Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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