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 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 When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter 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"

'Weak Evidence Cannot Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in 1997 Murder Case

24 December 2024 8:10 PM

By: sayum


The court overturned the trial court’s conviction due to weak circumstantial evidence and lack of corroboration on the ‘last seen’ theory. The Delhi High Court has acquitted two individuals, Videshi Kumar and Ram Nath, of the 1997 murder of Tuntun, citing a lack of conclusive evidence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, criticized the prosecution’s reliance on weak circumstantial evidence and the unproven ‘last seen’ theory.

On the morning of July 31, 1997, the body of a young man was discovered on the EMU railway tracks with two sharp cuts on the neck, a missing ear, and a severed hand lying nearby. Identified as Tuntun, the police suspected murder, followed by an attempt to disguise the death as a train accident. Key witnesses indicated that Tuntun was last seen alive with the accused, Videshi Kumar and Ram Nath, the previous night. Both men were subsequently charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

The court noted that the prosecution's case was heavily dependent on circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' theory. The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive, and key witness Babli (PW15), who was supposed to establish this motive, turned hostile during the trial. Babli denied any knowledge of the accused or any illicit relationship between her and Ram Nath, which the prosecution claimed was the motive for the murder​​.

The court highlighted several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case:

Last Seen Together Theory: The testimonies of the key witnesses, Gannauri (PW16), Bodhan Manjhi (PW17), and Ashok Singh (PW9), lacked consistency and corroboration. One of the witnesses, Gul Shekhar (PW25), turned hostile and denied knowing the accused or the victim​​.

Post-Crime Conduct: There was no evidence that the accused absconded, and their arrests were not immediate, casting doubt on their involvement​​.

Recovery of Bloodstained Clothes: The forensic evidence was inconclusive as the prosecution did not take blood samples from the accused to compare with the bloodstains found on the recovered clothes​​.

Type of Weapon: The knife allegedly used in the murder was not conclusively linked to the accused, with discrepancies about whether it was sharp on one or both sides​​.

Justice Manoj Jain remarked, "The alleged recovery of the weapon and the circumstances under which the dead body was placed on the railway track to portray an accident were not substantiated with concrete evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented does not complete the chain of events to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The High Court's judgment underscores the importance of conclusive evidence in criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence. The acquittal of Videshi Kumar and Ram Nath serves as a reminder of the need for rigorous proof to sustain convictions, emphasizing the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice is not compromised by weak and uncorroborated evidence.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2024

 

Latest Legal News