LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vasudev vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 135Decided 1 Feb 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2021
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

Police, acting on a tip-off, surrounded a house in a Madhya Pradesh village where an absconding accused, Rajesh Shukla, was allegedly hiding with associates, including the appellant Vasudev. After an alleged exchange of fire with police, both men surrendered, and weapons and cartridges were seized from them. They were tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) and Arms Act offences, and the High Court upheld the conviction; Rajesh Shukla's own appeal abated after his death, leaving Vasudev's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that none of the prosecution's own witnesses had actually seen the appellant firing at the police, and one witness admitted in cross-examination that the firing was directed towards a hillside, not the police party. The forensic (FSL) report showed the seized double-barrel gun's cartridges could not be matched to that weapon, undermining the case that the appellant had used it to fire. Independent witnesses present at the scene did not support the prosecution's version, and the arrest/seizure proceedings appeared to have been prepared later at the police station rather than on the spot. The Court held that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest on presumption, and since the ingredients of attempt to murder and the specific Arms Act firing offence were not established, it acquitted the appellant of those charges, while leaving intact his conviction for unlicensed possession of arms (for which he had already served the sentence), ordering his release.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction cannot rest on suspicion or presumption of guilt by association. The prosecution must prove each ingredient of the specific offence (such as intention to kill) beyond reasonable doubt through direct, credible evidence, and forensic reports that contradict the prosecution's theory can be decisive on appeal.

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