Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
“Call Details Record of the victim would have reflected her location which could have even strengthened the case of prosecution but is not explicable as to why such valuable piece of evidence was not bothered to be collected. Thus, a golden opportunity went begging.”
Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the acquittal order, also pointed out the fact that all 6 people had been acquitted twice by the different Benches of Bombay High Court.
“While human emotions know no bounds and rules, but definitely human sensibilities emanating from mind shall have prevailed for an educated person like appellant to have reigned his affections for third person, with scant regard for respondent who reposed complete faith by entering into vows of marriage.”
Supreme Court commented that “the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment” as happened in the instant matter which started in 1993 and came to an end in 2024, after 30 years of suffering.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
The High Court was shocked to find that the Trial Judge have not understood properly what is meaning of the theory beyond reasonable doubt in appreciating the evidence in POCSO cases.
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
While emphasising on the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony, the Calcutta High Court cautioned against its universal application and highlighted the need for evaluation based on the case’s circumstances.
Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.
Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.
Allahabad High Court said that there is a serious discrepancy in the eyewitness testimony. It does not match with other evidence, material and circumstances.
The Special Judge opined that the prosecutrix’s conduct of never disclosing anything about incident to anybody nor seeking anybody’s help during relevant period, cast a serious doubt on her version of events.
“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
“Thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which the Court has explicitly warned against.”
The prosecution failed to establish the misbranding of the “Red Label Natural Care Tea” beyond a reasonable doubt as the report of the public analyst, was not adequately proven.
“It is high time that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.”
“The Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination”.
Supreme Court said that admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects, and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of other available evidence.
The Court was of the view that the depositions did not have the requisite sterling quality and inconsistencies in the same created serious doubt regarding the nature of the alleged sexual offence but also credibility of the deposition.