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 Man in Murder Case Citing Suspicious Recovery and Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment, the Supreme Court of India acquitted an appellant, Krishan, in a murder case underlining the principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ due to suspicious recovery of the weapon and unreliable eyewitness testimony. The case, presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, was decided on January 25, 2024, under Criminal Appeal No. 2351 of 2011.

Krishan was initially convicted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, along with co-accused Mahesh, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction primarily hinged on the recovery of a weapon and the accounts of two eyewitnesses, who later turned hostile.

In its decision, the Supreme Court observed, “As neither PW-1 nor PW-3 supported the prosecution, what remains to be considered is only the evidence of alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant.” The judgment further noted the inconsistencies in the recovery of the weapon, stating, “The recovery was made from open space in a garden... the place was easily accessible to many.”

Highlighting the critical aspects of the investigation, the Court remarked, “The police have not investigated the role played by the said Naresh Yadav, who, according to PW-2, the brother of the deceased, was on inimical terms with the deceased.” This lack of thorough investigation into alternative suspects and motives significantly weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, underscored the importance of reliable evidence and thorough investigation in criminal cases, reiterating that doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. “The benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant,” the judgment declared, leading to Krishan’s acquittal.

Date of Decision: 25 January 2024

KRISHAN VS STATE OF HARYANA           

 

Latest Legal News