No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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

Similar News