| Case Title | Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar |
| Introduction | This case involves the abduction and murder of Neelam, allegedly by seven individuals, with the motive of acquiring her father’s property. The case went through multiple rounds of litigation, leading to a conviction of the accused by the Patna High Court, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court. |
| Factual Background | On 30.08.1985, Neelam was abducted from her residence and later found dead. A case was registered against seven accused, including Vijay Singh. The Trial Court convicted five of them and acquitted two. The Patna High Court reversed the acquittal of the two and upheld the conviction. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law | Indian Penal Code, 1860:
|
| Analysis | The evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence, was found to be unreliable due to discrepancies and lack of corroboration. The Supreme Court noted the prosecution’s failure to prove the accused’s involvement in the crime. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused due to a lack of concrete evidence and improper reliance on unreliable testimonies. The Court also ruled that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal of two accused. |
| Current Scenario | As of September 2024, the Supreme Court has acquitted all seven accused, and the impugned judgment of the Patna High Court has been set aside. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case pertains to the abduction and murder of Neelam in 1985, allegedly by seven individuals, including Vijay Singh, due to a property dispute. The Trial Court convicted five accused and acquitted two, but the Patna High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting all seven. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which found inconsistencies in the evidence, including unreliable eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, acquitted all accused, and set aside the previous judgments.
“It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is any reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused.” – Supreme Court of India
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
