Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Acquits Ravi Mandal and Another in Murder Case: Cautions Against Reliance on Testimony of Chance Witnesses

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Ravi Mandal and another accused in a murder case, highlighting the need for cautious scrutiny of evidence and the unreliability of testimony by chance witnesses. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra presided over the bench and delivered the judgment on May 18, 2023.

The case pertained to the murder of an individual whose body was found in a forest. The Trial Court had convicted Ravi Mandal and the other accused based on testimonies of witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased with the accused on the night of the incident. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction, considering the prosecution evidence to be reliable and corroborative.

However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, casting doubts on the reliability of their statements. The Court noted that the evidence primarily relied on the testimony of two chance witnesses, identified as PW-2 and PW-5. It emphasized the need for a cautious and close scrutiny of evidence when relying on the testimony of chance witnesses, particularly in cases where their presence at the scene of the crime remains doubtful.

The Court examined the statements of PW-2 and PW-5 and found their explanations for their presence at the scene to be questionable. It observed that PW-2 had remained silent for an extended period of over three and a half months before disclosing the incriminating circumstances he allegedly witnessed. The Court held that the delayed disclosure, without a cogent explanation, significantly undermined the credibility of PW-2's testimony.

Similarly, the Court noted that PW-5's explanation for his presence at the scene contradicted the evidence presented. His claim of going out to ease himself was contradicted by the presence of toilets within the cinema hall where the incident occurred. Moreover, PW-5's statements were inconsistent, and there were discrepancies regarding the recording of his statement by the investigating officer.

The Court also raised doubts about the recovery of weapons from the accused. It noted procedural lapses, such as the lack of public witnesses during the recovery and discrepancies in the site plan. Moreover, the ballistic report, which connected the recovered weapon to the crime, was not put to one of the accused during the recording of his statement. These factors led the Court to question the reliability of the recovery and its admissibility as evidence.

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for the murder. The Court highlighted the necessity of strict scrutiny in blind murder cases where evidence is collected from bits and pieces, cautioning against basing convictions on unconvincing evidence.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of Ravi Mandal and the other accused. The Court acquitted them of all charges and discharged any existing bail bonds. The judgment emphasized the importance of properly evaluating evidence and applying correct legal principles to ensure a fair and just trial.

Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023

RAVI MANDAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND   

Latest Legal News