Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

Medical Evidence Did Not Corroborate Prosecution’s Narrative: Supreme Court Acquits Vishwanatha in Mangalore Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has acquitted Vishwanatha, accused in the high-profile 2000 murder case of an elderly woman in Mangalore. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing discrepancies between witness testimonies and medical evidence.

On December 26, 2000, 86-year-old Devaki was found strangled in her home in Kudupu, Mangalore. The prosecution alleged that Vishwanatha and co-accused Ravikumar broke into her house intending to commit robbery, and killed her when she was alone. Devaki’s daughter, Rohini (PW-1), reported the crime upon discovering her mother’s body. The FIR was promptly registered, and the accused were arrested the same day. The trial court acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in the evidence, but the Karnataka High Court later reversed this decision, convicting both men. Vishwanatha appealed to the Supreme Court after Ravikumar passed away.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimonies of key witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, who claimed to have seen the accused strangling Devaki through a window. PW-1 identified Ravikumar, a known relative, and named Vishwanatha based on Ravikumar’s call to him during the escape. However, the court noted significant doubts about these identifications due to the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).

The autopsy report indicated ligature marks on Devaki's neck, but crucially, these marks did not encircle the neck fully, as would be expected if strangulation had occurred as described by the witnesses. The court highlighted this inconsistency, stating that the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s narrative.

The bench emphasized the principle that a conviction must be based on evidence that leaves no room for reasonable doubt. In this case, the absence of a TIP for Vishwanatha, who was unknown to the witnesses, and the discrepancies between the witness accounts and medical evidence, were significant enough to undermine the prosecution’s case.

Justice Dhulia remarked, "The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the eyewitnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade casts further doubt on the identity of the accused."

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Vishwanatha underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal convictions. This judgment reaffirms the necessity for corroborative evidence in cases relying heavily on eyewitness testimonies, especially when the accused is not previously known to the witnesses. The ruling reinstates the trial court’s original acquittal and serves as a critical reminder of the stringent standards required for criminal convictions.

 

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka

 

Latest Legal News