Part of the Forensic Docket on Legal Desire Forensics — a case where forensic or identification evidence broke down on appeal.
The facts
Five accused were prosecuted under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and the trial court convicted them relying on witness testimony.
On appeal, the reviewing court found the testimonies of two purported eyewitnesses, PW5 and PW7, to be highly doubtful.
It further held that although PW7’s evidence established a motive for the crime, motive alone could not be sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Critically, the headnote records that even the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
On this combination of doubtful eyewitness testimony and medical evidence contradicting the prosecution’s account, the accused’s conviction could not be sustained, and the State’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.
Why this belongs in the Forensic Docket: Motive can explain why someone might have committed a crime, but this case confirms it can never substitute for reliable eyewitness and medical evidence — when the medical findings actively contradict the prosecution’s narrative, that gap is often decisive.
Case details
| Citation | [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1121 |
| Case number | Criminal Appeal No. 548/2013 |
| Court | Indian Supreme Court |
| Decided | 2015-12-16 |
| Module | Failure Registry |
Read the full judgment (PDF), sourced from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (AWS Open Data Registry, CC-BY-4.0).
Explore more in the Forensic Docket or browse the full Forensics hub.
Where the legal industry reads first.
Enjoyed this article? Get the biggest legal industry updates, deals, appointments, insights and expert interviews in your inbox, free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.