Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. It upheld the trial court's conviction, establishing that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that witness conduct cannot be judged by a uniform standard of reaction. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from a tragic incident on the intervening night of April 1-2, 1992, in Khunti, where the informant, Santosh Kumar Singh, his wife, and their two infant daughters were asleep. The prosecution's case was that accused persons Nilu Ganjhu and Md. Mahboob Ansari, motivated by a business rivalry with the informant over his bus agency operation, threatened him weeks prior. That night, an explosive substance was used, c...

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that a confessional FIR made to a police officer is wholly inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove its case with legally admissible evidence, rendering the medical and other evidence insufficient for conviction. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Narayan Yadav, himself lodged an FIR at Korba Kotwali Police Station on 27.09.2019, confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. In the FIR, he stated that a quarrel ensued at the deceased's residence after the latter made an obscene remark upon seeing a photograph of the appellant's girlfriend. In a fit of rage, the appellant claimed he picked up a vegetable knife and inflicted injuries on the deceased, later also hitting him with...

Tag: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

No Set Formula for Human Reaction: Supreme Court Backs Parents Who Fled Fire That Killed Kids

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence