Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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