justice delivery - The Legal Chamber

Chain of Circumstances Broken: Supreme Court Frees Accused in Landmark Circumstantial Evidence Ruling

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Chain of Circumstances Broken: Supreme Court Frees Accused in Landmark Circumstantial Evidence Ruling

This Supreme Court judgment acquits the accused based on the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence as mandated by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The court found the evidence regarding motive, last seen, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries to be unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Balwant, whose body was discovered in a waterworks tank in Hisar on December 23, 1997. His father, Har Nath (PW-11), identified the body and filed a complaint, leading to an FIR. The prosecution alleged that the accused—Shanti Devi, her son Rajbir, and Veena—murdered Balwant due to a property dispute, as Shanti Devi was a tenant in his house, and an illicit relatio...

Supreme Court Simplifies Amendment Rules for NI Act Complaints

The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint can be amended post-cognizance if it cures a curable infirmity and causes no prejudice to the accused. The amendment should not alter the complaint's fundamental nature. The test of prejudice is the cardinal factor, and procedural rules are subservient to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that three cheques issued by the respondents, Rana Milk Food Private Ltd., for a sum of ₹14 lakhs were dishonored. The complaint stated the transaction was for the purchase of "Desi Ghee (milk products)." After summons were issued and the complainant's chief-examination was concluded, the appellant sought to amend th...

Supreme Court Exposes Cover-Up, Mandates CBI Investigation for Custodial Violence

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not mandating the registration of anCfor custodial torture, as per Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandates immediate FIR registration for cognizable offences. The Court directed a CBI investigation to ensure impartiality, citing institutional bias and conflict of interest. It quashed the counter FIR under Section 309 IPC as mala fide and awarded ₹50 lakhs compensation for the egregious violation of Article 21. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional duty to protect citizens from state excesses and uphold human dignity. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a police constable in Jammu & Kashmir, was summoned for an inquiry related to a narcotics case on February 17, 2023. He reported to the Joint Interro...