Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal.”
“The subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amount to disappearance of evidence and raise grave suspicion against the convict. However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial”.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7, 34 and 37 — Arbitration agreement — Bindingness of, on non-signatory — Group of Companies Doctrine
“The motive for the commission of the offence was absent and the same was very relevant as the case was based on circumstantial evidence.”
The Court found that circumstances in the instant case constituted more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had happened on the day & date his wife died.
The Court found that circumstances in the case constitute more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had happened on the day & date his wife died.
“When one of the three circumstances was disbelieved and discarded by the High Court, then the chain of circumstantial evidence could not have been held to be complete and proved and on that basis to hold the accused guilty of the offence.”
Special leave petition – Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order of the High Court
“In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, confession of co-accused, dating back to the year 1954.
The accused was arrested in 2012 on the suspicion of murdering his wife, mother and 2-year-old daughter. In 2016, the Trial Court convicted him and imposed death penalty which was confirmed by Bombay High Court
The Court emphasised that in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. The presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused throughout the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court.
“A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to the plane of ‘must be true’.”
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
“It is never the intention of the legislature to say that merely because two persons were residing together in a house along with others and one of them suffered homicidal death, it would not necessarily mean that the deceased was last seen in the company of others.”
The Court said that the prosecution evidence must establish that the accused was the perpetrator of the offence and no one else.
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on circumstantial evidence.
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 201 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen theory and recovery of weapon: In this case,
Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.