Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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