LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Amar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Criminal Appeal · 2020 INSC 587Decided 12 Oct 2020
Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Justice Aniruddha Bose · Justice Krishna Murari

Background

In 1990, Devinder Singh was fatally attacked near a Delhi market and died shortly after. Two of his brothers who were allegedly walking with him at the time said they witnessed three men, including the appellants, assaulting him with hockey sticks and a knife. Based largely on the testimony of one brother who was the only one of the three eyewitnesses whose account was not disowned at trial, the trial court and Delhi High Court convicted the appellants of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding the sole surviving eyewitness's account riddled with inconsistencies and "unnatural conduct": notably, that the two brothers who claimed to be present made no attempt to save their sibling from attackers armed only with hockey sticks and a knife, and did not seek nearby medical help despite a clinic being close by. The Court also noted a serious discrepancy in the hospital's medical-legal record of the deceased's identity and companions, and that the post-mortem injuries (15 wounds) were difficult to reconcile with the eyewitness's claim that the assault lasted only five minutes. Because the prosecution's case rested on a single, uncorroborated eyewitness whose reliability was seriously undermined, the Court held the guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot rest safely on a single eyewitness whose account conflicts with ordinary human behavior and contemporaneous records: courts will set aside even a concurrent finding of guilt by two lower courts where the core evidence does not withstand scrutiny.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case