Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-05-09 allowed

Renuka Prasad vs The State represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police

Bench: 2 — Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran

In Brief

Two accused were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC by the High Court, which reversed the Trial Court's acquittal. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal and acquitted them. Of 87 prosecution witnesses, 71 turned hostile at trial. The High Court's conviction rested on Investigating Officers' testimony regarding Section 161 statements, voluntary statements of the accused, and recoveries made during investigation. The Court held that Section 161 statements are inadmissible under Section 162 except to contradict a witness; an IO's mere recitation of such statements cannot establish guilt. Confessions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can inculpate only if the recovered item has independent evidence connecting it to the crime. With no eyewitness identification, no established motive, and massive witness hostility, the Court found the conviction was based on surmises and assumptions rather than legal evidence, which is impermissible in criminal law.

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

Criminal Law Evidence Confessions Circumstantial Evidence Murder Conspiracy Section 302 IPC Section 120-B IPC Section 27 Evidence Act Section 30 Evidence Act Section 161 CrPC Section 162 CrPC Hostile Witnesses Presumption of Innocence Appellate Review of Acquittal

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