Tag: Section 27 Evidence Act

Property Dispute & Unreliable Witnesses: Why Supreme Court Threw Out a Murder Conviction
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Property Dispute & Unreliable Witnesses: Why Supreme Court Threw Out a Murder Conviction

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, as established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to conclusively prove homicide, motive, or the appellant's exclusive residence with the deceased. The recovery evidence was discredited, and the medical testimony created reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the death of Sunanda (also known as Nanda Gitte) in Talani village. On July 22, 2010, police received information about a doubtful death and found Sunanda's body about to be cremated in an open field. The police intervention halted the rites, and upon inspection, they found a strangulation mark on her neck and an injury on the back of her s...
Read More
Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dead Body in House Isn’t Enough: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Loan Dispute Case

In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. The Court found the evidence—including motive, recovery of weapons, and extra-judicial confessions made in a police station—to be unreliable, insufficient, and lacking credible corroboration to sustain a conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the brutal murder of a police driver on the night of 10th-11th March 2006. The prosecution alleged that the murder was instigated by a fellow policeman, A1, due to his inability to repay a loan of ₹1 lakh to the deceased. The deceased was lured to the house of A1 and A2 (A1's wife) on the false pretext of repaying the debt. ...
Read More
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...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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

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...
Read More
No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...
Read More