Category: Acquittal

Indian Penal Code, 1908, S.376–Rape–Delay in lodging FIR– Acquittal-Delay of 7 months in lodging FIR-In present case evidence adduced by prosecutrix falls short of test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unreliable to act upon It-­ Critical examination of evidence on record is warranted in such cases- -Accused acquitted.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 710 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 703 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogol Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Hon’ble Mr.…

Common intention–Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not attribute any overt act to the appellant–The mere fact that he was in the company of the accused who were armed would not be sufficient to attract Section 34 IPC–Appellant cannot be held guilty by application of Section 34 IPC–His conviction is accordingly set aside. Common intention–Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself–For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 606 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. of…

Identification of Prisons Act, 1920, S.4–Sample of Fingerprints-­ Police officer is competent to take finger print from crime scene without the orders from Magistrate–To dispel doubts as to its bona fides and to rule out the fabrication of evidence, it is eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate-Evidence Act, 1872, S.27.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 333 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 524 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Criminal Appeal No.…

Murder—Identification of Accused—Specific identification of the four accused, from a group of 200- to 300 rioters, with 100% perfection; without a mention of any distinguishing marks seems highly improbable—Accused acquitted. Murder—Test Identification Parade—No reasonable explanation provided for such an inordinate delay of 55 days in conducting the TIP— Accused acquitted Murder—Gunshot Injury—Both the Post -Mortem report and the F.S.L. report are incompatible with each other with regard to exit wound and recovery of bullet—Accused acquitted. Murder—Benefit of doubt arising out of inefficient/defective investigation must be bestowed upon the accused.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 55 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1960 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Criminal Appeal…

Murder–Dying Declaration—Acquittal- -Inconsistencies between dying declarations as recorded by Doctor and as recorded by Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar)–High Court acquitted accused by extending benefit of doubt—Held; when there are two reasonable views and the High Court adopted on possible view then no interference is called for in appeal

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3164 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1924 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Bhanumathi  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Criminal Appeal No. 1791…

Law on circumstantial evidence when it comes to fixing guilt on those accused in a criminal case can be summarised in the following manner. “The law can be summarised in the following terms: 1. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution which lead to an inference to the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond doubt; 2. The circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused; 3. The circumstances should be linked together in such a manner that the cumulative effect of the chain formed by joining the links is so complete that it leads to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused; 4. That there should be no probability of the crime having been committed by a person other than the accused.“

Law on circumstantial evidence when it comes to fixing guilt on those accused in a criminal case can be summarised in the following manner. “The law can be summarised in…

We would think in the circumstances of this case that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 376. It would indeed be unsafe to convict him based on the testimony of the prosecutrix. He would certainly be entitled to the benefit of doubt created by the circumstances.

  We would think in the circumstances of this case that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offenceunder Section 376. It would indeed be unsafe to convict him based on…

Acquittal–A judgment of acquittal passed should not be interfered with when two views are possible. Benefit of doubt–When trial Court finds so many infirmities in the prosecution version then trial Court left with no choice but to give benefit of doubt to accused–Acquittal by trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 385 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2005…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.