UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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