JITENDRA @ TUNDA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER — Crl.A. No. 634/2013
Case under 1511Li-criminal Law : Criminal Matters Other Than Covered by the Aforesaid Categories(cases Where Life Sentence Is Imposed) Section II-E. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010176342012
Filing Date
17-May-2012
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 634/2013
Diary Number
17634/2012
Order Date
30-Jul-2025
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Allowed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JITENDRA @ TUNDA
Adv. MERUSAGAR SAMANTARAY
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Adv. PASHUPATHI NATH RAZDAN[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Jul-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jul-2025
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
24-Jul-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Oct-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Oct-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Aug-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Aug-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Nov-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Nov-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-May-2012
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 634/2013
Case Summary: Jitendra @ Tunda v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court set aside the High Court's conviction order, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt due to critical gaps in prosecution evidence. Key Reasoning: The Court found the prosecution's case insufficient, primarily because: (1) the key eyewitness boy was never examined; (2) the dying declaration was highly questionable given the deceased's severe injuries suggesting unconsciousness; (3) the auto-rickshaw driver was unexamined; and (4) essential links in the circumstantial evidence remained unestablished. The Court held that the same benefit of doubt extended to the co-accused (who were acquitted by the High Court) must apply to the appellant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts