Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Acquittal in a Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case by the High Court. The apex court, in its ruling, emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Bench comprising Hon'ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra stated, "Normally, this Court is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal. But when it appears that the High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case and ignoring some of the most vital facts, acquitted the respondent and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may rightfully be exercised."

The case involved the State of Punjab as the appellant and Kewal Krishan as the respondent. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen circumstance, discovery of the deceased's body, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a knife. However, the High Court had set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, casting doubt on the reliability of witnesses and the evidentiary value of the circumstances presented.

The Supreme Court, while considering the appeal, highlighted the need to establish each incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and to form a complete chain of evidence pointing towards the accused's guilt. The Court agreed with the High Court's doubts regarding the witness's disclosure, the inconclusiveness of the last seen circumstance, uncertainties surrounding the recovery of the weapon, and the weak nature of the alleged extra-judicial confession.

The bench further stated, "The High Court was justified in doubting the testimony of the witness and finding the last seen circumstance inconclusive in pointing towards the guilt of the accused by excluding other hypotheses consistent with his innocence."

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of acquittal passed by the High Court, as it found no justification to interfere with the plausible view taken by the High Court.

This judgment reiterates the significance of ensuring a thorough analysis of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It serves as a reminder that the principles of justice require careful scrutiny and a high threshold of proof in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.

DATE OF DECISION: June 21, 2023  

STATE OF PUNJAB vs KEWAL KRISHAN

Latest Legal News