Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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