Category: Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 – Murder – Acquittal – Lack of proper test identification parade – Non-examination of key eyewitness who was present when the accused and deceased were last seen together – It becomes very doubtful as the accused was shown to the witness in the office of the Superintendent of Police, only with a view to see that he identifies the accused in the court – This procedure is not known to law – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

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

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Acquittal – Judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity – This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

In this case, the appellant and the deceased were in a romantic relationship – However, when the deceased stopped communicating with the appellant, the appellant became upset – There was an altercation between them, witnessed by the deceased’s mother – conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is alter to Section 304 part II, and the appellant is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already served – If not needed in any other case, the appellant shall be released immediately – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH N. RAMKUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same – although the accused has been named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful – Appellant directed to be released – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IRFAN @ NAKA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Murder – Acquittal – Case of prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession – for the reasons recorded, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant – Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.975…

Acquittal – Criminal conspiracy and dishonestly receiving stolen property – Sole connecting evidence that the recovery based on disclosure statements of accused, along with those of the other co-accused but this evidence is not sufficient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the meaning of Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR SONI AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” – Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(g), 342, 506 and 34 – Rape – Acquittal – Clothes of prosecutrix handed over to the police were having stains of semen, however, no scientific evidence was produced to link the same with the accused – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed