TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court acquits appellant due to lack of evidence in murder and house trespass case.</h1> The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under sections 302 and 449 of the IPC for murder and house trespass, respectively. The Court found ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC for murder.2. Conviction u/s 449 IPC for house trespass.3. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence.4. Alleged suppression of evidence by prosecution.5. Motive and alibi of the accused.6. Recovery of incriminating items.7. Credibility of witnesses and investigation.Summary:1. Conviction u/s 302 IPC for murder:The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Ms. Nidhi and Ms. Priti, daughters of Dr. Ram Avtar Mudgal (PW-2), and sentenced to death. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on circumstantial evidence and found significant gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.2. Conviction u/s 449 IPC for house trespass:The appellant was also convicted u/s 449 IPC for committing house trespass to commit the murders. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the appellant's presence at the crime scene during the relevant time.3. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence:The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.4. Alleged suppression of evidence by prosecution:The defense argued that the prosecution suppressed vital evidence and withheld important witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce fingerprint reports, lie detector test results, and other crucial documents. This raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case.5. Motive and alibi of the accused:The prosecution claimed that the appellant had a motive due to a failed love affair with Ms. Priti. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence of the love affair was not credible. The appellant's alibi, supported by witnesses, was not adequately refuted by the prosecution, leading to further doubts about his involvement.6. Recovery of incriminating items:The prosecution presented the recovery of a chain, knife, and blood-stained clothes as evidence. The Supreme Court found the recovery process suspicious and unreliable. The chain's identification was flawed, and the recovery of the knife and clothes was not convincingly proven.7. Credibility of witnesses and investigation:The Supreme Court questioned the credibility of key witnesses (PWs 3, 4, and 5) and found their testimonies inconsistent and unconvincing. The investigation was criticized for its lapses, including the non-examination of crucial witnesses and the failure to present critical evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution's case was built on suspicion and lacked credible evidence. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
