LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Natthu Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 56Decided 19 Jan 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 1651 of 2019
B.R. Gavai · Vikram Nath

Background

According to the prosecution, the deceased Vineet was walking with two companions past a paan shop in Jalaun district, Uttar Pradesh, when four men surrounded them; Natthu Singh allegedly shouted at co-accused Rajesh to kill Vineet, and Rajesh shot him dead with a double-barrel gun. The trial court convicted Rajesh of murder and Natthu Singh of murder with common intention (for the exhortation), sentencing both to life; the Allahabad High Court upheld the convictions in April 2019. The Supreme Court had already dismissed Rajesh's separate petition in November 2019, and the State argued Natthu Singh's appeal must follow.

Decision Breakdown

The Court first clarified that dismissal of a co-accused's special leave petition does not amount to approval of the High Court's view, and since leave had been granted in Natthu Singh's case earlier, the Court was free to examine the evidence itself. Two of the three eyewitnesses had turned hostile, and the independent paan-shop owner, though questioned by police, was never examined at trial. That left a single witness, PW-3 Jitendra Singh, whose statement was recorded two months after the incident even though he stayed at home throughout, only six kilometres by good road from the police station, and never went to report what he saw; his testimony also shifted between saying all of them were encircled and saying only Vineet was, with the others five or six paces away. The investigating officer offered no explanation for the delay. The Court held that this made PW-3 a witness who was "not wholly reliable", and a conviction cannot rest on such a witness's uncorroborated word. Natthu Singh was acquitted and ordered to be released.

Lesson Learnt

When a murder case comes down to one eyewitness, that witness's credibility is everything: an unexplained two-month delay in giving a police statement, combined with inconsistencies, can be enough to earn the accused the benefit of doubt. The dismissal of a co-accused's appeal does not automatically seal the fate of another accused whose appeal has been admitted.

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