By- Ganesh Vajrapu, Alliance University
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted two individuals previously convicted in a 2001 murder case, underscoring the importance of robust evidence in criminal proceedings.
The bench, comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and N.S. Shekhawat pointed out glaring deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of blood on the recovered knife, lack of private witnesses during recovery, and contradictions regarding a broken lock[1].
Citing the precedent set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. The State of Maharashtra, the court emphasized that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient to meet this standard, the court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt, resulting in their acquittal.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the crucial role evidentiary standards play in upholding justice and protecting the rights of the accused[2].
References Used
[1] Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[2] Chishti, A.J. (2024) S. 27 evidence act: Recovery of material object on disclosure of accused doesn’t automatically mean offence was committed by him: Punjab & Haryana High Court, Live Law. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-murder-case-sec-27-evidence-act-recovery-of-material-object-on-disclosure-of-accused-would-not-automatically-conclude-offence-was-committed-by-him-259953 (Accessed: 10 June 2024).
About the Author
