In Brief
A land dispute between villagers in Rajasthan led to violence resulting in deaths, with rival groups prosecuting each other. The accused claimed private defence after the deceased allegedly attacked them. The Supreme Court found that the investigation was seriously flawed: material evidence of injuries suffered by the accused was suppressed, the motive and origins of the dispute were not properly investigated, and witnesses presented contradictory accounts. Although the courts below had convicted four accused for murder, the Supreme Court held that when the prosecution suppresses key facts, fails to explain injuries sustained by accused persons in the same incident, and raises doubts about the case's foundation, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt. The plausible plea of private defence, combined with the accused's documented injuries, could not be rejected. The appeals by the accused were allowed and convictions set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.