Category: Acquittal

HELD Prosecution stands proved against accused-P and accused-S and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-I and accused-K deserve acceptance – Accused-I and accused-K be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Murder – Recovery of weapons – Prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 852…

(IPC) – Ss 302 and 436 – Murder by pouring kerosene in house and around the deceased and children – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant not being injured alone cannot be held as a circumstance to hold one guilty of having set fire to the house – Since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARUBAI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1154…

Dowry death – The essential ingredient of deceased committing suicide has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence. Prosecution failed to establish the death occurred due to suicide. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below convicting the appellants under Section 306, IPC merits interference . law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be summarized

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., and Aniruddha Bose, J. ) Criminal…

High Court misdirected itself in finding support for conviction on such unclinching evidence – The innocence of the appellants is a distinct possibility in the present matter and when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused-Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – As the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused by virtue of Section 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364-A, 376, 216 read with Section 120-B – Kidnapping Rape and Murder – Circumstancial evidence – Post-mortem report discloses that victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim – Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1306,…

Appeal against acquittal – Dying declaration – the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused – Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case – There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. KALAWATI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 35…

(IPC) – Ss 323, 504 & 506 – Voluntarily causing hurt -Trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagouda and R. Subhash…

You missed