Interesting Decisions on Criminal Law : Useful for Accused

Interesting Decisions on Criminal Law : Useful For Accused

1. Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, [2016] GCtR 6078 (SC) : S.302 of IPC was alleged. Statement was recorded after 3 days. Accused was ultimately acquitted.

2. Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [2014] GCtR 6079 (SC) : In this case, also S.302 of IPC was alleged. Even assuming to be true that recovery of certain incriminating articles were made at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that by itself cannot form the basis of conviction. Accused was acquitted.  

3. Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., [2021] GCtR 3439 (SC) : This case also involved allegations under S.302 of IPC. Jaikam Khan was acquitted ultimately. It was held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution.

4. Uppala Bixam & Bixmaiah v. Statte of A.P. [2018] GCtR 6080 (SC) : This also involved allegations of murder under S.302 of IPC, 1860. It was noted that "the only other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased-Ramesh on the basis of the confession of the appellant accused. In our considered view this only circumstance by itself may not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused." Ultimately, accused was acquitted. 

5. Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002] GCtR 6081 (SC) : This case involved allegations under S.302 of IPC, 1860. He was convicted by Trial Court. It was noted that it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Ultimately, accused was acquitted. 

6. Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2019] GCtR 4822 (SC) : This case was of alleged murder and robbery under the provisions of IPC. It was held that "one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof." It was also held that "last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime." Accused was ultimately acquitted.

7. Bhaiyamiyan v. State of M.P. [2011] GCtR 6082 (SC) : This case was of alleged gang rape under now-repealed S.376 of IPC. HC had convicted the accused persons. Accused came to Supreme Court. It was noted that FIR was lodged after 60 hours. Ultimately, accused was acquitted. 

8. Budh Singh v. State of U.P. [2006] GCtR 6083 (SC) : This case was of allegations of murder under S.302 of IPC. Gun shot wounds were there in this case. The argument of accused was that FIR is ante-timed. In terms of the U.P. Police Regulation the copies of the case diary were required to be sent to the Superintendent of Police and other high officer the next day. In this case the said requirement was not complied with. Accused were ultimately acquitted.

9. Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [2011] GCtR 6084 (SC) : This case was also related to S.376 of IPC. The alleged offence took place before IPC was repealed through BNS, 2023. It was pointed that in this case "the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix to bring home the charge of abduction and commission of rape by the Appellant does not inspire confidence and is not of sterling quality. In our opinion, it is neither prudent nor safe to hold the Appellant guilty of commission of the said offence." Accused was ultimately acquitted.

10. Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri [2012] GCtR 6085 (SC) : This case involved allegations of murder ; S.302 of IPC, 1860 was alleged. Alleged death took place during night hours. It was held that "while discrepancies in the testimony of a witness which may be caused by memory lapses were acceptable, contradictions in the testimony were not." "If the discrepancies between the first version and the evidence in Court were material, it was safer to err in acquitting than in convicting the accused." Ultimately, accused was acquitted.