MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Upholds Trial Court's Acquittal in Alleged Dowry Death Case: No Interference Called For When Trial Court’s View Is Possible

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of two individuals accused in a dowry death case. The court upheld the trial court's decision, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Narasimharaju, had filed an appeal against the acquittal of T.S. Ramesh and Jayamma, in connection with the alleged dowry death and murder of his sister, Sumalatha. The trial, which was closely watched due to its implications on dowry-related crimes, concluded with the trial court finding inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative.

In its judgment, the High Court observed, "The judgment of the Trial Court cannot be set aside merely because the High Court finds its own view more probable, save where the judgment of the Trial Court suffers from perversity or the conclusions drawn by it were impossible if there was a correct reading and analysis of the evidence on record." This statement was pivotal in affirming the trial court's decision.

The prosecution's case hinged on witness testimonies and an alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased. However, the court found these pieces of evidence unreliable and inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

The case also brought to light the complexities involved in legal proceedings related to dowry deaths. The court meticulously examined the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence presented, and the legal principles governing appeals against acquittal. It underscored the importance of thorough scrutiny in such cases, stating, "Unless the High Court finds there is complete mis-reading of the material evidence which led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the Trial Court which can also possibly be a correct view need not be interfered with."

Date: 28 November  2023

NARASIMHARAJU VS T.S. RAMESH

Latest Legal News