Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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   

Similar News