#criminal evidence

The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the death sentences of Pardeep and Sagar, holding that the trial court’s failure to present all incriminating material under Section 313 CrPC is a curable irregularity. It ordered a fresh sentencing hearing, indicating that such procedural lapses do not automatically sustain capital punishment.

The Bombay High Court acquitted an accused under Section 353 IPC, holding that mere threat of self-immolation, absent physical assault or proven discharge of official duty by the victim, cannot satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence. This clarifies the boundary between intimidation and criminal assault against public servants, impacting how prosecutors must frame charges in similar cases.

Bombay HC reaffirms that extra-judicial confessions made to a Police Patil are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also mandates scientific proof of victim identity, setting aside conviction where identity relied on circumstantial evidence alone.

HP High Court rules that dock identification without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) is inadmissible for stranger accused, creating reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores that unchallenged defence-friendly cross-examination statements must be accepted, reinforcing evidentiary standards in criminal trials.

Calcutta High Court acquitted an accused in a dowry death case, ruling that a dying declaration recorded without magistrate oversight and amid hostile witnesses cannot sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The judgment underscores the necessity of procedural compliance in recording dying declarations to ensure evidentiary reliability.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires concrete evidence of dowry demand or cruelty preceding the death. Mere death within seven years of marriage is insufficient, reinforcing the prosecution's burden of proof in dowry death cases.

The J&K High Court ruled that conviction based solely on a child witness's testimony-without corroboration, proven motive, or credible recovery evidence-is unsustainable. The judgment underscores the need for independent validation of child witness statements in criminal trials, particularly under the Ranbir Penal Code.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that summoning an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC necessitates a de novo trial if a witness dies before cross-examination, rendering prior testimony inadmissible. The acquittal was upheld as the trial court’s evidence appreciation was not perverse, reinforcing procedural fairness in criminal trials.

In a murder conviction upheld on a child witness’s testimony, the Calcutta High Court ruled that voluntariness and corroboration of a child’s account prevail over doubts about familial association or visibility conditions. The judgment reinforces that child witnesses can be reliable if their statements meet legal tests under Section 164 CrPC, impacting criminal trials relying on minor testimonies.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that DNA reports cannot sustain conviction without proof of chain of custody and expert testimony, reinforcing evidentiary standards under CrPC.

Karnataka High Court upholds conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on two consistent dying declarations, clarifying admissibility and reliability standards under Section 32 Evidence Act.

Gauhati High Court acquits accused in NIA terror case, holding that dock identification, photo ID, and electronic evidence without proper certification fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that Section 397 IPC is not a substantive offence but only enhances punishment for robbery/dacoity; acquittal upheld due to failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.

Jharkhand High Court acquits appellants in dacoity case due to inconsistent testimony, lack of Test Identification Parade, and failure to recover incriminating evidence.

Bombay High Court acquits accused in electricity theft case, holding that prosecution must prove meter identity and technical tampering beyond reasonable doubt.