Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Acquittal in Decades-Old Murder Case Due to Unreliable Ocular Testimony and Medical Discrepancies

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This criminal appeal was preferred by the accused-appellants to challenge the judgment and order dated August 31, 1984, passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 619 of 1981 (connected with Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1982 and Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1982), whereby they were convicted under Sections 148, 302 (read with Section 149), 379, and 404 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case alleged that on September 19, 1981, twelve accused persons carrying licensed and stolen firearms formed an unlawful assembly, surrounded the informant’s son (Sarfaraz) while he was ploughing a field with a tractor, and simultaneously fired at him, causing his death, before fleeing with his gun, cartridges, and cash. During the pendency of the appeal, several appellants passed away resulting in the abatement of the appeal against them, leaving the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court to adjudicate the matter specifically in respect of the surviving appellants (Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah). The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the surviving appellants from their bail bonds, holding that the ocular witnesses were planted afterthoughts whose presence was highly doubtful, that medical evidence completely contradicted the theory of simultaneous mass firing by twelve persons, and that enmity was improperly used by the Trial Court to substitute for cogent evidence.

  • Factual Matrix and Trial Court Decision:
    • According to the written report lodged by informant Riyaz Ahmad (PW-1), his son Sarfaraz had gone to plough a relative’s field with a tractor on September 19, 1981, accompanied by Moid Ahmad (PW-2), when twelve armed accused persons arrived and opened fire on him upon an exhortation by accused Kammu.
    • The Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 379, and 404 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, which prompted the filing of the criminal appeal in 1984.
    • During the long pendency of the appeal, nine appellants died (including Kammu, Baddu, Mohd. Ali @ Mohd. Dhol, Shafiullah, Zafar, Aslam, Manzar Ali, Atiqullah, and Babu @ Munna), leaving only Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah as the surviving appellants.
  • Doubtful Presence and Contradictory Statements of Ocular Witnesses:
    • The High Court noted that the informant Riyaz Ahmad (PW-1) was not an eyewitness and only learned of the incident after being informed at home by Moid Ahmad (PW-2).
    • An analysis of the testimony of alleged eyewitness Moid Ahmad (PW-2) revealed major and material contradictions regarding how and from where he reached the place of occurrence, rendering his presence highly suspicious.
    • Similarly, the conduct of the other alleged eyewitness, Shabbir (PW-3)—who claimed his licensed gun was snatched by an accused during the incident but never filed an FIR, made any police complaint, or took legal steps to recover it—was found to be completely unnatural, pointing to the conclusion that both PW-2 and PW-3 were projected as eyewitnesses as an afterthought.
  • Conflict Between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
    • Both Moid Ahmad (PW-2) and Shabbir (PW-3) testified that all twelve accused persons simultaneously targeted and fired at the deceased.
    • However, the post-mortem report and testimony of Dr. V.K. Tripathi (PW-5) revealed only three gunshot entry/exit wounds and one abrasion on the body of the deceased, creating a stark and irreconcilable contradiction with the theory of mass firing by twelve individuals.
    • Furthermore, no pellets, bullets, tiklis, or empty cartridges were recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer, further undermining the prosecution narrative.
  • Hostile Witness Testimony and Lack of Weapon Recovery:
    • Prosecution witness Rahmatullah (PW-7), who photographed the scene, turned hostile and stated that a policeman had actually burst the tires of the tractor at the scene about an hour and a half after he arrived, adding a cloud of suspicion over the authenticity of the crime scene evidence.
    • The Investigating Officer also failed to make any effort to recover or seize the numerous licensed and unlicensed firearms allegedly used by the twelve accused persons in the commission of the crime.
  • Enmity as a Double-Edged Weapon and Standard of Proof:
    • The High Court reiterated that while intense enmity and rivalry existed between the two sides due to old matrimonial disputes, multiple prior criminal cases, and village politics, enmity is a double-edged weapon that provides a motive both for committing a crime and for false implication.
    • Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam and Badam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court underscored that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal proof, and the large distance between “may be true” and “must be true” must be bridged by clear and unimpeachable evidence.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 102

Kammu and 12 others v. State of U.P. (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 102 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

September 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

A Definitive Review on Disability Pension Rights for Ex-Servicemen

This landmark batch of appeals brought by the Union of India challenged various orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts, which had granted the disability element of service pensions to ex-servicemen. These former personnel had been assessed by Release Medical Boards (RMB) as having disabilities that were “Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated” (NANA) by military service. The Supreme Court addressed the core tension between the protective, beneficial jurisprudence established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (governed by the Entitlement Rules 1982) and the restrictive framework introduced by the subsequent Entitlement Rules 2008. Crucially, the Court undertook a deep constitutional and administrative review of the legitimacy of the 2008 rules, evaluating whether they possessed binding legal force and whether they could dilute established beneficial entitlements.

2026 INSC 993 : Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) and Connected Appeals (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Next Story

Setting Aside Ineligible Selection to Protect Merit

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District. The appellant, who originally served as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District, applied for and was appointed to the post in Nashik despite an express restriction in the advertisement and the governing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001, mandating that applicants must possess ten years of work experience specifically within Nashik District. Although the Divisional Commissioner had erroneously issued a clarification stating that experience from other districts was acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled that a subordinate administrative official cannot issue clarifications contrary to statutory G.R.s and recruitment advertisements. Citing the doctrine that appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications amount to a fraud on the public, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the appointment of the eligible wait-listed candidate (the sixth respondent) in her place, while acknowledging the compassionate observation permitting the appellant’s accommodation in her home district.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court evaluated whether a candidate lacking the mandatory territorial work experience stipulated in a recruitment advertisement and government resolution can retain public employment based on an erroneous administrative clarification.
  • Mandatory Territorial Eligibility: A conjoint reading of the 2001 Government Resolution and the specific conditions of the advertisement clearly established that applicants must have accumulated their ten years of qualifying experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within the same district (Nashik).
  • Incompetence of Administrative Clarifications: The Divisional Commissioner lacked the legal authority to issue a clarification that ran completely contrary to the explicit text of the 2001 G.R.; any genuine doubt ought to have been referred back to the State Government.
  • Fraud on Public Aspirants: Reaffirming the principle laid down in Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court emphasized that appointing ineligible candidates in violation of advertised terms without an express relaxation clause constitutes a fraud on public candidates who possessed better qualifications but refrained from applying.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, the High Court’s judgment was upheld, the sixth respondent was awarded the rightful appointment with benefits to be disbursed within two months, and the appellant was granted time until September 30, 2026, to transition out of the post.

2026 INSC 1002

Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1002 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Acquittal Under NDPS Act Due to Flawed Sampling and Unproven Contraband

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had convicted them under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 8 years respectively, following allegations that they were caught carrying charas. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution fundamentally failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized samples, pointing out severe lapses, including the total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (drawing samples without a Magistrate), missing entries in the malkhana register regarding the exit of samples, a silent carrier constable, and an unexplained five-day delay before the samples reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Consequently, the FSL report became untrustworthy, and with no other reliable scientific proof that the recovered material was actually charas, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court examined the validity of convictions under the NDPS Act concerning the integrity of link evidence, the absolute necessity of maintaining a secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples, and the legal consequences of failing to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
  • Breach in Link Evidence and Custody: The prosecution failed to prove the safe transit of the samples from the malkhana to the FSL. Crucially, the forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police was dated December 1, 2004, whereas the FSL recorded receipt on December 6, 2004, leaving an unexplained five-day gap with zero evidence as to whose custody the samples remained in during this period.
  • Non-Compliance with Section 52-A: The investigating officer completely omitted the mandatory statutory safeguard of drawing representative samples in the presence of an Executive or Judicial Magistrate, which severely dented the integrity of the seizure and sampling process.
  • Exclusion of the FSL Report: Due to the shattered chain of custody and procedural flaws, the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) lost its evidentiary value and had to be discarded. Furthermore, the informal spot-testing method (burning a small piece of the substance) was deemed unscientific and insufficient to prove the material was charas.
  • Final Outcome: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges with their bail bonds discharged.

2026 INSC 1001

Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1001 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

The Finality of Tax Settlements: Barring Reassessment After ITSC Orders

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department), upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed a reassessment notice and order issued against the respondent-assessee, M/s. Omaxe Limited. The core controversy revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) retained the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow housing project deductions under Section 80IB(10) after the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already passed a final settlement order under Section 245D(4). The Supreme Court ruled that Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code. Once an application for settlement is admitted and a final order is issued, it attains absolute finality under Section 245-I, and the regular assessment machinery cannot be invoked to bypass this conclusiveness. The Court clarified that if the Revenue wishes to challenge a settlement order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, its sole exclusive remedy is to approach the ITSC directly under Section 245D(6)—not to initiate parallel reassessment proceedings.

  • Core Issue Addressed: The Supreme Court examined whether an Assessing Officer can independently issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 to disallow deductions (such as under Section 80IB(10)) that were part of the total income considerations during a concluded proceeding before the Settlement Commission.
  • Exclusive Jurisdiction of the ITSC: The Court reaffirmed that upon the admission of a settlement application, the ITSC assumes exclusive jurisdiction over the case for that assessment year, placing the regular assessment machinery under statutory abeyance pursuant to Section 245F(2).
  • Conclusiveness of Settlement Orders: Under Section 245-I, orders passed by the ITSC under Section 245D(4) are final and conclusive on the matters stated therein, barring the Revenue from splitting an assessment to re-litigate items through standard reassessment channels.
  • Exclusive Remedy for Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the Revenue discovers that a settlement order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment, Section 245D(6) provides the exclusive statutory pathway to declare the settlement void by moving the ITSC directly, a route the Revenue unsuccessfully attempted and exhausted in this very case.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the regular tax authorities cannot initiate parallel reassessments once an ITSC settlement order has attained finality.

2026 INSC 1000

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1000 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins