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.

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

1511LI-Criminal Law : Criminal matters other than covered by the aforesaid categories(Cases where life sentence is imposed) Section II-E

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JITENDRA @ TUNDA

    Adv. MERUSAGAR SAMANTARAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER

    Adv. PASHUPATHI NATH RAZDAN[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Jul-2025

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 30-Jul-2025

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

  4. 24-Jul-2025

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 24-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Oct-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 25-Oct-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 22-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 22-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 26-Nov-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 26-Nov-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 08-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 08-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 26-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 05-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 17-May-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 634/2013

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case