Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

'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

 

Similar News