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 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