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

'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