Indian Penal Code,1860 —Sec. 302 r/w. 34 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Sec. 25 ,26 r/w. sec. 27 — appellants coming on the motorcycle driven by the appellant no.3 at the said spot-parked their vehicle and exhorted the deceased who started running followed by all the three accused persons armed with swords and carrying a kanta (a sharp edged weapon)— police took her blood-stained kurta and even the bedsheet in their possession- three appellants came on motorcycle carrying naked swords, parked the motorcycle and threatened/provoked his son, whereupon his son started running towards the fields- appellants chased him with swords and kanta , son kept crying "Save Me, Save Me"—no independent person of the area, the shopkeepers or the labourers working in the fields, who allegedly saw the appellants chasing the deceased- a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of incident-recovery of the weapons of crime -appellants admitted to have committed the offence with the above weapons, cannot be accepted.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Sec. 302 ,201, 377 and 120-B—Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 — Rule 12 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Sec. 11 —unnatural death of a young boy, aged merely ten years-prolonged absence caused alarm and his father, organised a search with family members and co-villagers-rope was found tightened around his neck, his hands tied behind his back with a rope, and an axe drenched in blood lying close by-"FIR" Registered- cause of death was strangulation and that the injury could have been caused by an axe- a blunt object had been inserted in the anus- Appellants were acquitted of the unnatural offence, argued that the medical evidence does not, by itself, link the Appellants to the murder— alleged motive, i.e. revenge for an insult to the sister of one of the co-accused is vague and unproven- 'last-seen' theory is itself a weak link unless the prosecution establishes a narrow time gap between when the accused and the deceased were seen together—Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Petitions were filed by the Appellant before the High Court, challenging the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who had upheld the grant of bail to the respective Respondents (accused persons— Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had granted bail to them— Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said Petitions and hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court—senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accusation against the accused husband and his co-accused wife was that they had allegedly taken Rs . 1,90,00,000/- and promised to transfer certain land in favour of the Appellant— However, it was subsequently discovered that the said land had not only been previously mortgaged but had also been sold to a third-party—Upon being confronted, the Respondents allegedly refused to return the money with interest- this led to the registration of an FIR against them. It was contended that despite noting the observations in the Order of the High Court, the ACMM still proceeded to grant bail only on the basis that the chargesheet was filed and there was no occasion for the accused persons to tamper with the evidence- HELD- The manner in which bail was granted also reveals certain procedural irregularities at the grassroots level of the judiciary, which we should not ignore— Cognizance was taken by the ACMM vide Order dated 28.03.2023 (12.20 pm) and summons were issued to the accused. On 09.08.2023, the accused sought, and were granted time to file bail applications. accused duo, it is stated, appeared before the ACMM on 18.10.2023 with pleas for grant of bai — technically , once the bail applications were taken up for hearing and the accused had appeared before the Court, they were deemed to be in the custody of the Court concerned, unless a specific Order was passed directing their release - either on regular basis or in the interim.

Indian Penal Code,1860—Sec. 302— Arms Act,1959— Sec. 25,27 — Evidence Act,1872— Sec.-3 —Criminal Appeal- Murder- Division Bench of the High Court, vide the common impugned judgment and order allowed the individual criminal appeals preferred by each of the accused-respondents and set aside their conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court and acquitted them of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and patent infirmities in the prosecution case —Gun firing on deceased- Eye witnesses- Three declared hostile— Story of chasing by complainant, snatching of gun and assault on accused, not disclosed in first information— discrepancies in evidence- held- view of the High Court was reasonable and not perverse