Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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