Weapon Recovery - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Explains When It Can’t Be Trusted :Dying Declaration Sole Basis for Conviction?

7Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When It Can’t Be Trusted :Dying Declaration Sole Basis for Conviction?

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the indispensable procedural safeguards for a fair trial, particularly the right to effective legal representation. It reiterates that a conviction based solely on a dying declaration requires the court to be fully satisfied of its voluntariness, truthfulness, and that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. The ruling emphasizes that such a declaration cannot form the basis for conviction if it suffers from grave infirmities, such as the lack of a fitness certification from an identified doctor and the recording officer's failure to note his own satisfaction regarding the declarant's condition. Facts Of The Case: On March 31, 2012, Munish Kumar and his brother Amit were returning to their village by car when they were intercepted by two other veh...

Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and misappropriation of a gold chain (Section 404 IPC), and under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25 and 27). The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased's gunshot injury. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and other offenses. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, which placed the appellant with the deceased before the crime. Key evidence included the recovery of articles, such as the weapon used in the crime, and forensic findings that linked the appellant to 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)...