Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme 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