Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-09-28 allowed

Amrish Rana vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Bench: 2 — Navin Sinha

In Brief

Amrish Rana was convicted under Section 307 and other provisions of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for a shooting incident. The sole evidence linking him to the crime was the testimony of an injured witness (PW11) who was present during the occurrence. However, the witness had failed to name the appellant in the FIR despite knowing him from a prior jail encounter, instead naming only another accused and four unknown persons. The witness named the appellant for the first time during court examination. The Supreme Court found this material omission fatal to the prosecution's case. Additionally, the witness had initially stated in his police statement that the second shot was fired by an unknown person, contradicting his later court testimony. The Court held that these significant discrepancies meant the appellant's presence at the occurrence was not established beyond reasonable doubt, entitling him to acquittal.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Law Evidence Witness Examination Burden of Proof

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login