Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Converts Conviction to Culpable Homicide - Granted Benefit of Doubt

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India modified the conviction and sentence of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1863 of 2010, granting them the benefit of doubt. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and M.M. Sundresh, stated, "We find that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt in view of Exception I of Section 300 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code."

The case revolved around an incident where the appellants were accused of assaulting and causing the death of two individuals who were forcibly detained in their house. The victims ultimately succumbed to their injuries, leading to charges being framed against the appellants.

The prosecution relied heavily on the dying declaration of one of the deceased victims, along with the testimonies of witnesses. However, the Supreme Court noted contradictions in the dying declaration and the testimonies, as well as the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by one of the accused.

Considering the right of private defense claimed by the appellants, the court concluded that the possibility of the appellants acting in self-defense could not be ruled out. The judgment further stated, "We find that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt in view of Exception I of Section 300 of the RPC."

As a result, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 of the RPC were converted to the one under Part-I of Section 304. The appellants had already served a sentence of approximately ten years, leading the court to determine that the sentence already undergone was sufficient.

Supreme Court allowed their appeal, modifying the conviction and sentence. The bail bonds of the appellants were ordered to be discharged.

Supreme Court highlights the importance of considering all aspects of a case, including self-defense claims and the benefit of doubt, in reaching a just decision. The ruling sets a significant precedent in criminal cases involving allegations of assault and highlights the need for a thorough examination of evidence to ensure fairness and justice.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2023

MOHINDER PAL AND OTHERS  vs STATE OF J & K

Latest Legal News