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 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