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" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Witness Testimonies Cannot Override Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Police Officers in Custodial Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Supreme Court overturns the High Court's decision, acquitting both police officers accused in the 1992 custodial death of Jeeva, citing inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of motive.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted two police officers previously convicted in a high-profile custodial death case. The court cited unreliable witness testimonies and a lack of motive as primary reasons for overturning the lower courts' decisions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal prosecutions.

The case involves the custodial death of Jeeva, who surrendered at the Amraiwadi Police Station in Ahmedabad on June 10, 1992. Jeeva, accompanied by his advocate and two sisters, was allegedly beaten by Police Inspector Vinod Jaswantray Vyas and Superintendent of Police Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel. He was found dead two days later, with multiple injuries suggesting severe physical assault.

The Supreme Court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of Jeeva's sisters, Selvin Prabhakar (PW-1) and Dhanlakshmi Vaiyapuri (PW-2). While both claimed to have witnessed the assaults, their narratives contained contradictions regarding the sequence of events and the specifics of the assault.

"If at all PW-1 and PW-2 had themselves seen the victim being beaten up, there was no occasion for PW-1 to put a question to Jeeva as to why he was weeping or as to the manner in which he had been beaten up," noted the court.

The court also questioned the motive attributed to the accused. The prosecution's claim that Jeeva's criminal antecedents and the officers' desire to extract confessions could have led to the assault was found unconvincing. The court observed that Jeeva was known to have been involved in several criminal cases, but no specific reason was provided for why the officers would target him so violently while sparing his co-accused.

Medical evidence played a crucial role in the acquittal. The Medical Jurist (PW-9) who conducted the postmortem examination stated that the injuries were fresh and likely inflicted within six to eight hours of Jeeva's death. This contradicted the prosecution's timeline and the witnesses' accounts. Additionally, the court found it implausible that Jeeva, with such severe injuries, could have climbed five flights of stairs to meet the DCP, as the witnesses claimed.

The judgment highlighted the importance of reliable evidence and the improbability of the prosecution's theory. The court stated, "Considering the unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical Jurist, the probability of the victim having been assaulted in Sabarmati Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the postmortem report is much higher as compared to the theory set up in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution witness that Jeeva was fatally assaulted by A1 and A2 while he was detained at the Amraiwadi Police Station."

Justice Mehta remarked, "If at all, Jeeva(deceased) was having the large number of injuries as noted in the postmortem report, the prison authorities would definitely have made a note thereof in the jail records at the time of his admission in the jail premises and the observations made at that time would be crucial for arriving at the truth of the matter."

The Supreme Court's decision to acquit the accused underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice based on credible evidence. This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the need for thorough and consistent evidence in prosecuting custodial violence cases. The acquittal not only impacts the immediate case but also sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the scrutiny required in evaluating witness testimonies and medical evidence.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Deceased) Through LRs vs. The State of Gujarat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News