Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News