precedent - 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 Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

The Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction for a cheque dishonour case lies exclusively with the court where the payee's bank branch (for collection) is situated, not where the cheque was physically deposited for credit. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning four cheques issued by the respondent, Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant, who maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank's Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore, had presented the cheques for collection through the bank's Opera House Branch in Mumbai to be credited to his Mangalore account. The Jud...