Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree

'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