The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused in the murder of Neelam, which took place in 1985 in Simaltalla, Bihar. The Trial Court had convicted five of the accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC while acquitting two, but the High Court reversed the acquittals. The Supreme Court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly the testimony of key witnesses and the failure to prove the deceased’s residence at the crime scene. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to uphold the conviction. The court also emphasized the need for a higher threshold for reversing acquittals, highlighting deficiencies in the High Court's rationale.

1. Factual Background: On 30th August 1985, Neelam was abducted and later found dead. The prosecution alleged that the motive was related to a property dispute between the accused and the deceased's family. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, leading to the trial of seven accused.

2. Trial Court's Decision: The Trial Court convicted five of the accused under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting two. It based its judgment on eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence related to a property dispute.

3. High Court's Reversal: The Patna High Court upheld the conviction of the five accused and reversed the acquittal of the other two, convicting them for the same offenses.

4. Supreme Court’s Analysis: The Supreme Court found serious doubts about the presence of key witnesses at the scene. The court highlighted several discrepancies, including the failure to prove that Neelam was residing in the house where the alleged abduction took place. The testimony of key witnesses was inconsistent, and the natural witnesses were not examined. The circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain of events.

5. Reversal of Acquittal: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for reversing the acquittal of two accused without sufficient grounds. It reiterated the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the lower court’s judgment is found to be perverse or unsustainable.

Facts:

1. Incident and FIR:

   • Date of incident: 30th August 1985.
   • FIR filed by Ramanand Singh, the brother-in-law of the deceased, alleging abduction and murder.

2. Accused:

   • Seven accused, primarily related to the deceased, were initially charged under multiple IPC sections, including Sections 302 (Murder), 364 (Abduction), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy).

3. Property Dispute Motive:

   • The alleged motive for the crime was a property dispute between the deceased's family and the accused.

4. Eyewitness Testimonies:

   • Testimonies of PW2, PW4, and PW18 were deemed inconsistent, with no explanation for their presence at the crime scene. Critical natural witnesses like tenants and neighbors were not examined.

5. Post-Mortem Report:

   • There was a discrepancy regarding the time of death. The post-mortem findings suggested the time of death was inconsistent with the prosecution's version.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Insufficiency of Evidence:
  The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete and consistent chain to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Witness Credibility:
  Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the failure to call upon natural witnesses severely undermined the prosecution's case.

• High Court's Reversal of Acquittal:
  The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that a reversal of acquittal requires a higher threshold of evidence, which was not met in this case.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 302 IPC - Punishment for murder.
2. Section 364 IPC - Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
3. Section 34 IPC - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
4. Section 120-B IPC - Criminal conspiracy.

Subjects:

#CriminalLaw #Acquittal #IndianPenalCode #CircumstantialEvidence #WitnessCredibility #MurderCase #PropertyDispute