Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction, Cites ‘Pervasive Errors’ in Evidence Assessment in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has acquitted the accused in a murder case, highlighting significant flaws in the evaluation of evidence presented in the trial. The case pertains to the conviction of the appellants under Sections 201, 300, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34, stemming from a murder committed in June 1999.

Delivered on August 8, 2023, the ruling was handed down by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the judgments of the trial court and the high court, ultimately concluding that the convictions were unsustainable due to the pervasive errors in the assessment of evidence.

At the heart of the case were critical issues such as the reliability of an extra judicial confession, the recovery of the weapon, and the establishment of motive. The court stressed that an extra judicial confession necessitates corroboration, which the witness who allegedly received the confession failed to provide. Inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony and the absence of vital details undermined the confession’s credibility.

Regarding the recovery of the weapon, deemed crucial for the prosecution’s case, the court observed that the lack of an independent witness and the public accessibility of the recovery location diminished its weight as evidence. The court highlighted the need for robust corroborative evidence for such recoveries.

The court also addressed the motive, noting that the prosecution struggled to establish a clear and compelling reason linking the appellants to the crime. The motives presented lacked cohesion and lacked substantial evidence connecting them to the accused.

The judgment referenced several cases to underscore the importance of meticulous evidence assessment, emphasizing the need to thoroughly evaluate witness credibility and corroborative evidence. The court noted that both the trial court and high court judgments fell short in properly scrutinizing inconsistencies, discrepancies, and the absence of corroboration.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of this, the appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Date of Decision: August 08, 2023

Krishan Kumar & Anr.vs The State of Haryana     

Latest Legal News