Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Lack of Credible Evidence Leads to Acquittal in Counter Case – Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction and Acquittal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice J.M. Khazi, upheld the conviction of S.H. Ramakrishnappa for the assault and attempted murder of Lokesh, and confirmed the acquittal of accused in a counter case, in a judgment that highlights the complexities of legal evidence evaluation in criminal cases.

The convoluted case, which stemmed from a land dispute in Sadahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, involved two interlinked appeals – Criminal Appeal Nos. 1183 of 2013 and 978 of 2010. The court carefully dissected the incidents of assault that occurred in October 2007, leading to the conviction of S.H. Ramakrishnappa under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for a brutal attack on Lokesh using a club.

Justice J.M. Khazi, in the judgment, emphasized the significance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings, stating, “In the light of the overwhelming evidence placed on record by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the fact that the blood-stained clothes of injured Lokesh were not seized by the Investigating Officer would not go to the root of the prosecution case.”

In a parallel development, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by S.R. Nagesh, challenging the acquittal of Lokesh and others in a counter case. The court observed substantial contradictions and lack of evidence against the accused, suggesting that the complaint was filed as a reactionary measure to the initial assault. “Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons in Cr.No.112/2007 and acquitted them,” Justice Khazi noted.

Date of Decision: 13 DECEMBER, 2023

S R NAGESH VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

 

Latest Legal News