Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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