MSME Award Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226 To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 19: Allahabad High Court Electricity Company Strictly Liable For Death Due To Snapped Wire; Court Enhances Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court MPID Act Has No Provision To Release Attached Property To Owner After Auction Order Is Passed: Bombay High Court Non-Service Of Requisition Order Doesn't Vitiate Land Acquisition; Section 3(2) Of 1948 Act Is Directory: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Valid Journey Ticket From Deceased Is Strong Evidence Of Bona Fide Travel; Tribunal Can't Elevate Inference To Proof: Delhi High Court J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Of MLA; Says Public Servants’ Annoyance At Representative Raising Grievances Not ‘Public Disorder’ Vague Allegations Of Caste Abuse Without Mentioning Specific Caste Name Do Not Sustain Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High Court Public Interest Litigation Not Maintainable In Service Matters: Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To Reinstatement Of Panchayat Officials Choice Of Principal Is Absolute Right Of Minority Institutions, Seniority Cannot Be Imposed By State: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mutation Order Passed Without Notice To Parties Is Legally Unsustainable; Natural Justice Mandatory: Orissa High Court Right To Life Casts Obligation On State To Not Defeat Employee’s Medical Entitlements Through Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Sale Deeds Presumed Valid; Specific Performance Of Oral Re-conveyance Agreement Requires Cogent Evidence: Kerala High Court Uttering 'F*** Off' During Work Spat Lacks Sexual Intent, Not Sexual Harassment Under Section 354-A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court Cannot Implead State To Interpret Notifications In Private Litigations Under Article 227: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Or Substitute Its Own View Under Article 227 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Contradictory Dying Declaration Recorded After Tutoring Cannot Form Basis Of Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law In Dowry Death Case Section 498A IPC Not A Weapon To Settle Grudges Against In-Laws Without Specific Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law Physical Relationship For Years With Prior Knowledge Of Each Other's Marital Status Not Rape Under 'False Promise Of Marriage': Supreme 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