Supreme Court Half Yearly Landmark Judgements on Criminal Trial, 2022

\"\"
  1. Criminal Trial – The same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es). (Para 20) Mahendra Singh v. Sate of M.P., AIR 2022 SC 2631.
  1. Criminal Trial – Murder – Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh.
  1. Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – The Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else – Circumstances howsoever string cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11, 14) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 5 SCC 438.
  1. Criminal Trial – Motive –  Only because the motive is established, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 23) Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2022 SC 2631.
  1. Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – The circumstances concerned “must or should be” established and not “may be” established – The accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusion of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2542.
  1. Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favor of the accused – motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence.  Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2022 (5) SCALE 329

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *