MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take Place of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Supreme Court Acquits Ravinder Kumar of Murder, Upholds Dowry Death Conviction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Emphasizing the critical difference between suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, acquitted Ravinder Kumar of murder charges under Section 302 IPC but upheld his conviction under Sections 304B and 498A for dowry death and cruelty. This significant judgment, delivered on March 6, 2024, pivots on the nuanced interpretation of circumstantial evidence and alibi in criminal law.

The apex court's decision primarily hinged on the interpretation and application of the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and the concept of alibi. The judgment underscores the significance of distinguishing between 'suspicion' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal jurisprudence, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

The case stemmed from the death of Meena, Ravinder Kumar's wife, whose body was discovered in a pool of blood in May 2004. The prosecution's case was built on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of bloodstained clothes and documents, which were later deemed unreliable. The primary issue was whether these circumstances unequivocally pointed towards Kumar's guilt or if there was room for an alternate hypothesis.

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed each piece of circumstantial evidence. The court observed, "It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established." The bench emphasized that "the circumstances should be such as to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved." Acknowledging the gaps in the prosecution's narrative, the Court concluded that the evidence did not form a complete chain leading to Kumar's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the Court found the plea of alibi raised by Kumar to be significant. In the absence of definitive evidence placing him at the crime scene during the crucial period, his conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder was deemed unsustainable.

While acquitting Ravinder Kumar of the murder charges, the Court restored his conviction under Sections 304B and 498A, pertaining to dowry death and cruelty, respectively. Given that Kumar had already served over fifteen years in prison, the Court waived the fine and ordered his immediate release, conditional on his not being required in any other case.

Date of Decision: March 6, 2024

Ravinder Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi

Latest Legal News