ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court held that the investigation was not conducted fairly (material suppression of injuries and motive), the prosecution evidence (including eyewitness testimony and recoveries) did not inspire confidence and was not separable across accused, the plea of private defence was plausible and the prosecution failed to displace it; consequently the convictions could not be sustained and the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt, so the appeals by the accused were allowed and the complainant's appeals dismissed.

Parties
Appellants (accused): ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS.; Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (disposed by Supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeals by accused allowed; appeals by de facto complainant dismissed; convictions set aside and accused acquitted (benefit of doubt to accused; private defence found possible/plausible).
Legal Topics
Murder (section 302 Ipc), Unlawful Assembly (section 149 Ipc), Private Defence (sections 96 102 Ipc), Fair Investigation and Suppression of Evidence, Doctrine Falsus in Uno
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Murder (section 302 Ipc) Unlawful Assembly (section 149 Ipc) Private Defence (sections 96 102 Ipc) Fair Investigation and Suppression of Evidence Doctrine Falsus in Uno

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS.

Appellants (accused)

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (disposed by Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC were sustainable
  2. 2 Whether the plea of private defence (ss.96-102 IPC) was made out and whether any accused exceeded that right
  3. 3 Whether the investigation was fair or involved suppression/colourable conduct affecting prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the investigation was not conducted fairly (material suppression of injuries and motive), the prosecution evidence (including eyewitness testimony and recoveries) did not inspire confidence and was not separable across accused, the plea of private defence was plausible and the prosecution failed to displace it; consequently the convictions could not be sustained and the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt, so the appeals by the accused were allowed and the complainant's appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals by accused allowed; appeals by de facto complainant dismissed; convictions set aside and accused acquitted (benefit of doubt to accused; private defence found possible/plausible).

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2017 allowed
  • Criminal Appeal Nos. 754-755 of 2017 dismissed