Category: Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

2024 INSC 295 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

2024 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVISHANKAR TANDON — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender – How much of information received from accused may be proved – The Court found the circumstances not conclusive and not consistent only with the hypothesis of the appellant’s guilt – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the conclusion of guilt and exclude other hypotheses – The appellant’s conviction was not sustained due to doubts about the prosecution’s story and the failure to prove all circumstances forming the chain of evidence – Acquittal.

2024 INSC 298 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN SHANKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal -The High Court’s judgment, which upheld the acquittal, was based on the absence of valid documentary evidence of any enforceable debt or liability – Both appellate courts found no evidence of an “enforceable debt or other liability,” which is crucial for the petitioner’s case under Section 138 – The courts applied the principle of balance of probabilities and concluded that the respondent’s defence was plausible – The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no perversity in the appellate courts’ findings and no point of law warranting interference.

2024 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25, 67, 41 to 44 – The court discussed the applicability of Section 67 statements and the compliance with Sections 41 to 44 of the NDPS Act – By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh, the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 – These appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court – The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt.

2024:INSC:290 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. NAJMUNISHA SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2009 AND ABDUL HAMID CHANDMIYA ALIAS LADOO BAPU SOLE APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL…

The court found that the eyewitnesses were tutored by the police, which undermined the prosecution’s case – The absence of independent eyewitness testimony further weakened the case – The court acquitted the appellants due to the substantial doubt raised about the prosecution’s case and ordered an inquiry into the police’s conduct – The appellants had already served over 10 years of incarceration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIKANDAN — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Supreme Court found that the High Court’s judgment was based on conjectures and did not properly consider the trial court’s detailed analysis of evidence – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and acquitted the appellants, stating that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Citing precedents, the Court notes that mere harassment without proximate positive action leading to suicide does not constitute abetment – The Court quashes the proceedings against the appellant, stating no offence is made out against her, but allows the trial to proceed against other accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMUDHA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and Section 304 Part-I – Murder – Acquital – The Supreme Court finds that the prosecution has not fully established the circumstances necessary for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, as required by the precedent set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – The Supreme Court allows the appeal, acquits the appellants of all charges, and orders their immediate release, citing insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 109, 302 and 307 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Court found inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, and lapses in the police investigation – The Court discussed the right of private defense and the standards for “interested” versus “independent” witnesses – This Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and directed the release of both appellants, citing reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERIYASAMY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

You missed