LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vijay & Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 699Decided 11 Jan 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2009
B.R. Gavai · M.M. Sundresh

Background

In August 1998, Dharmendra was found stabbed to death in Meghdoot Garden, Indore, with 31 injuries on his body. His father, Prem Narain (PW-5), told police he had gone to the garden looking for his son and saw the accused (Vijay, Babbu alias Nandkishore and Mahesh) stabbing him; about three months earlier the same men had allegedly beaten the deceased's elder brother, and there was admitted enmity between the families. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed this in 2008. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the conviction rested solely on the father's contradictory testimony.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused. It noted that the two other claimed eyewitnesses (the deceased's brothers) had been disbelieved by both courts below, and that the police constables, the guard and a kulfi vendor at the garden had all not supported the prosecution, leaving only the father's evidence. While a conviction can rest on a single witness, that witness must be "wholly trustworthy, reliable and cogent"; here the father admitted he went to the garden purely by chance, that it was dark near the bridge where the assailants supposedly fled, and that he could not identify the 7-8 people gathered there. Given the admitted prior enmity, which the Court called a "double-edged weapon" that supplies motive but also raises the possibility of false implication, and the material contradictions, the Court doubted whether he had really witnessed the incident at all and gave the accused the benefit of doubt.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction can rest on a single eyewitness, but only if that testimony is completely reliable; where the sole witness is a close relative with an admitted grudge against the accused and his account has serious gaps, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

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