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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Justice Grinds Slow But Fine: Supreme Court Acquits Trio in 1997 Murder Case After Reversal of Trial Court’s Acquittal by High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted three individuals, previously convicted by the High Court for the murder of Marthandappa in 1997. This decision comes after the Trial Court had initially acquitted them. The legal crux of this judgment lies in the re-evaluation of the credibility and consistency of eyewitness accounts, and the interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

The case revolves around the murder of Marthandappa, allegedly due to an illicit relationship, leading to strained relations with the accused. On June 28, 1997, the accused reportedly attacked Marthandappa and a witness, PW-4. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, but the High Court reversed this for three appellants, convicting them of murder. The Supreme Court was then approached to reassess the High Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court meticulously re-examined the testimonies of the key witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, and the evidence on record. The Court observed discrepancies in the witnesses’ accounts, especially concerning their actions post-incident, which cast doubt on their presence and the authenticity of their testimonies. The Court noted, “The chain of circumstances created by the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the outcome of guilt.

The Court also found contradictions in the medical evidence compared to the testimonies. The Court questioned how PW-4, severely injured, managed his actions post-assault without help. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to address these critical aspects and relied heavily on the fact that PW-4 was an injured witness.

This judgment underscores the principles of criminal jurisprudence, especially concerning the appellate court’s scope in dealing with appeals against acquittal. The Court reiterated that if the Trial Court’s view is plausible, the appellate court should not interfere unless there are substantial and compelling reasons. The judgment also highlighted the importance of the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the consistent interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court, after its analysis, found the High Court’s reversal of the Trial Court’s acquittal unjustified. It restored the Trial Court’s order, acquitting the appellants of all charges and ordering their immediate release if detained.

Date of Decision: February 12, 2024

Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Latest Legal News