Category: Acquittal

Acquittal – Rape and murder of a six-year-old -There are, in fact, yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established- pointing to the guilt of the appellant – Needless to state, such responsibilities would be all the more heightened in cases of crimes involving severe punishments such as imprisonment for life or the sentence of death

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Acquittal – Murder – Testimony of witness – Mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI MANDAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.511 of…

(CrPC) – S 313 – (IPC) – Ss 302 read with 120B – Murder – Criminal Trial – Examination of accused – Failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity – It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR @ SUMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Burden of proof is always with the prosecution – – Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.530…

Complainant has attempted to turn a purely contractual dispute between the parties into a criminal case – Not only that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint – Complaint does not disclose that any of the ingredients of the offence complained of have been made out – Complaint bearing filed before the trial court under Section 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC is dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH AGGARWAL — Appellant Vs. GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(CrPC) – Ss 472 and 482 – Wakf Act, 1995 – Ss 3(ee) and 52A – Quashing of criminal complaint – Section 52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf properties had expired in the past and where the tenant or lessee was, at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force, in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. V. NIDHISH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

HELD considering that the place of occurrence was an open place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would not be justified – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

N D P S Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section 29 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statements were made by the accused to an police officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and hence, bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statements will have to be kept out of consideration – Prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOTHILAL — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…