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 Trio in Punjab Murder Case Citing Lack of Unlawful Assembly and Doubtful Witness Testimony

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today acquitted three individuals in a 2003 home invasion and murder case in Punjab, underscoring the absence of an unlawful assembly and casting doubts on the reliability of witness testimonies.

The apex court’s decision pivoted around the non-establishment of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC and the questionable identification of the accused by witnesses. The Court emphasized that for charges under Sections 460 and 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC to stand, the existence of an unlawful assembly was imperative, a condition that was not met in this case.

The case involved a violent home invasion resulting in theft and the death of two individuals. The appellants, previously convicted by lower courts, appealed to the Supreme Court. Key issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the absence of a test identification parade, and the legal significance of an unlawful assembly in sustaining convictions under various sections of the IPC.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, critically assessed the eyewitness accounts, noting inconsistencies and the failure to identify the assailants clearly. “The prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the offence,” observed Justice Oka. The Court also noted the non-examination of crucial witnesses and the doubtful identification of recovered ornaments.

The judgment revisited the principles surrounding unlawful assembly, eyewitness reliability, and the necessity of a test identification parade. The Court highlighted that for convictions under Section 148, 460, and 302 with the aid of Section 149, the formation of an unlawful assembly is a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court set aside the earlier judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, acquitting the appellants Kishore, Bala, and Banaras of all charges. The Court stated, “In the absence of cogent evidence, it is not possible to uphold the conviction,” leading to their acquittal.

Date of Decision: February 7, 2024. 

Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 

 

Latest Legal News