Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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

 

Latest Legal News