Category: Acquittal

Murder – Acquittal – circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime – In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused – Order of acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. SHYAM BIHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 376, 452 and 506 – Rape – where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAVINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Circumstantial evidence – they must exclude all hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the accused and inconsistent with his guilt – Incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and otherwise also the circumstance of last seen was inconclusive – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…

Murder – In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is not well established – Constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. MUSLIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

(CrPC) – Section 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5(2) – In cases where the Special Court decides to proceed with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no need to consider the requirement of the approver being examined as a witness in the Magistrate’s Court according to Section 306(4)(a).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SRINIVASULU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

In explaining the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was no summing­up of any evidence specifically against the appellant by the Trial Court – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMOL BHASKARRAO WAGHMARE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.744…

You missed