Category: Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 34 – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt – If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DARSHAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 and 149 – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal against – A sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHHOTE LAL — Appellant Vs. ROHTASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304-Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The appellant is entitled to an acquittal as the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation of culpable homicide is not murder – HELD If the evidence is inseparable and attempting to separate it would destroy the prosecution’s foundation, the court can discard the entire evidence – The court must assess the evidence on record, considering the legal limits of separating the evidence and determining if the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SEKARAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD “as the doctor has not certified that the deceased was fit enough to give a statement when Surjit Singh (PW-10) allegedly recorded her dying declaration, the same will have to be discarded. He urged that the first dying declaration has been made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), who was the prosecution witness. He stated that the deceased disclosed to him that she herself consumed the aluminium phosphide tablets” the case made out by the prosecution is not free from doubt and, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 565…

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(v) and 14A(1) – – Acquittal -There must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHASHIKANT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal – The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide – By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHIT SINGHAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

(CrPC) – Section 313 – NDPS,1985 – Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC – However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned – Appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years – If, after the lapse of more than twenty­two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 32 – Murder by poisoning – Dying declaration – A statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is bolstered if the trial court hands down an acquittal – A Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration – Time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJUNATH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed