Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Acquittal in Chain Snatching Case: Lack of Corroborative Evidence and Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies: Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement that underscores the necessity for corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings, the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the State against the acquittal of individuals accused of a chain snatching incident. The case, pertaining to an incident dating back to February 8, 2012, involved the alleged robbery of a Mangalya Chain.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and highlighted significant discrepancies in the witness testimonies, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In their judgement, the bench noted, "There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate with the mahazar witnesses."

The case, originally tried in the Sessions Court, involved the prosecution presenting several witnesses (PW-1 to PW-11) and 74 documents (Exs.P-1 to P-74). However, the Sessions Court found the prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The High Court, in its examination, found that the complainant's (PW-1) testimony was fraught with inconsistencies, particularly concerning the identification of the accused. The court highlighted the failure of the police to conduct an identification parade, which cast further doubts on the identification process.

Additionally, the testimonies of other witnesses, such as PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-7, were found to be contradictory, particularly in relation to the recovery of the stolen items and the identification of the accused.

In its conclusion, the bench observed, "There is no reason to disbelieve the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Court and the finding recorded by the Sessions Court is neither contrary to the evidence on record nor perverse, calling for interference in the appeal filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal."

Date of Decision: 22 January 2024

State of Karnataka By Subramanyapura Police Station VS Imran @ Mady Irfan

 

Latest Legal News