Section 161 CrPC - The Legal Chamber

Quality Over Quantity: Supreme Court Reiterates a Single Witness Must Be “Wholly Reliable” to Convict

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Quality Over Quantity: Supreme Court Reiterates a Single Witness Must Be “Wholly Reliable” to Convict

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the established legal principle governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, as outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis. The conviction was overturned as the sole witness's testimony was found to be unreliable and improved, failing to meet this standard of proof. Facts Of The Case: On October 11, 2003, Santosh Kumar Pandey (PW-2), a shop owner, observed the appellant, Shail Kumari, walking in a disordered condition towards Pujari Talab, a nearby water body, with her two young children. Growing suspicious, he asked a rickshaw puller to foll...

Supreme Court Directs Merger of 64 Fraud FIRs Across 10 States for Streamlined Trial

The Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to consolidate 64 FIRs across 10 states into single trials per state, merging subsequent FIRs with the earliest FIR in each jurisdiction. Subsequent FIRs were deemed Section 161 CrPC statements, enabling supplementary chargesheets under Section 173 CrPC. Bail in the principal FIR applies to clubbed cases, except where special enactments require fresh bail applications. Special Courts may try all offences, including IPC violations, under state laws. Single-FIR states proceed independently. Facts Of The Case: Ravinder Singh Sidhu, Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and Developers Limited (KIDL), has been in custody since 11 October 2018. He faces 64 FIRs across 10 states (Punjab-23, Uttar Pradesh-15, Haryana-6, U...

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is crucial in corruption cases involving influential accused. It clarified that confessional statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered at the bail stage, being inadmissible under Sections 25-26 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that political vendetta allegations alone cannot justify anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists. It directed investigating agencies to avoid third-degree methods while preserving their right to seek custodial interrogation if warranted. The judgment reaffirmed the higher threshold for anticipatory bail compared to regular bail in serious economic offences. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from allegations of corruption ...