Minor Witness - The Legal Chamber

Can In-Laws Be Summoned for Murder if Not Named in the Chargesheet? Supreme Court Answers

2Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can In-Laws Be Summoned for Murder if Not Named in the Chargesheet? Supreme Court Answers

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the principles for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, holding that courts must apply a "strong and cogent evidence" standard—stricter than a prima facie case but short of conviction-weight evidence. It emphasizes that evidentiary reliability, witness credibility, and dying declaration admissibility are trial-stage determinations, not preliminary considerations. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 25, 2021, by the appellant, Neeraj Kumar, alleging that his sister, Nishi, was shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. The information was conveyed to the appellant by his nine-year-old niece, Shristi, who witnessed the incident. During the investigation, the deceased's statements were recorded tw...

Supreme Court Rules: Police Must Register FIR on Cognizable Offence, Can’t Wait for Victim to Complain

In a significant ruling on police accountability, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 154 of the CrPC, registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court held that police inaction in such a scenario constitutes a dereliction of duty, and officers cannot avoid this statutory obligation by citing the victim's failure to formally pursue the matter. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the communal riots in Akola, Maharashtra, on May 13, 2023. The appellant, Mohammad Afzal, a 17-year-old minor, claimed that while returning home, he witnessed four unknown individuals brutally assaulting Vilas Gaikwad in an auto-rickshaw, mistaking him for a Muslim. The assailants then turned on Afzal, damaging his vehicle and attacking him on the ...

From Life Imprisonment to Freedom: Supreme Court Cites “Misreading of Evidence” in Acquittal

The Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, set aside the concurrent convictions of the appellants, finding that the Trial Court and High Court had misread and ignored striking features of the prosecution's evidence. The Court highlighted issues with witness credibility, unexplained delays in statements, and unreliable corroborating evidence, concluding that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Facts Of The Case: In 2011, the wife of PW-1 won the Panchayat Board elections, a position held by Accused No. 1's family for approximately four decades. This led to numerous skirmishes between the two sides in the months following the elections. On the night of November 14, 2012, PW-1's brother (Deceased No. 1), his son (Deceased No. 2), and daughter (PW-9)...