incriminating circumstances - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

21Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent convictions, holding that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC vitiates a fair trial. The trial court's failure to put each material circumstance individually to the appellants caused prejudice. The Court remanded the matter for de novo examination from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, emphasizing this mandatory procedural requirement. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on March 31, 2016, when the informant, Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from their fields. They were allegedly surrounded by several accused persons, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi. The accu...

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence

The Supreme Court held that a defective Section 313 CrPC statement, with only generic questions failing to put specific incriminating circumstances, causes grave prejudice and vitiates trial. Non-examination of a material Investigating Officer attracts adverse inference. Subsequent FIR superseding the original constitutes an embellished statement under Section 161 CrPC. Defence witnesses carry equal evidentiary value to prosecution witnesses. Facts Of The Case: On 11th May 1990, Gajendra Prasad Gupta was assaulted and fatally injured while returning from a village fair. His father, Rameshwar Sahu, initially gave a Fardbeyan on 12th May 1990 before ASI R. Paswan, which was treated as FIR. This statement described an altercation at the sweet stall and a subsequent attack by three uni...

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...