Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket Adopted Son Is Class I Heir—Collateral Relatives Cannot Challenge Will in Probate Court: Madras High Court Assignment of Leasehold Rights is Transfer of Immovable Property, Not Supply of Services: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice Against Aerocom Irretrievable Breakdown Is Cruelty in Itself When the Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case Scheduled Areas Are Constitutionally Protected, Not Constitutionally Frozen: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Municipal Inclusion of Tribal Territories Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court When the Sole Eyewitness Is Dead, Confession Alone Can’t Convict: Madras High Court Acquits Chain Snatching Accused Office of Advocate in Residential Building Not a Commercial Use: MP High Court Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order No Entitlement to Interest Beyond 1.5% Without Agreed Terms: MP High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeals Against Official Liquidator's Adjudication Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry Revenue Authorities Cannot Alter Mutation of Acquired Land Based on ‘Recalled’ Judicial Orders: Karnataka High Court Section 45 Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention - Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Defeats Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 223 BNSS | No Cognizance Without Complainant's Oath: Gauhati High Court 304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case Auction Purchaser Has No Absolute Right: Calcutta High Court Upholds Borrower's Right of Redemption Under SARFAESI Act 15 Days’ Notice Under TP Act Is Sufficient To Terminate Monthly Tenancy After Lease Expiry: Bombay High Court Indefinite Blacklisting Without Authority or Hearing is Civil Death in Disguise: Allahabad High Court Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court FIR Lodged After Marital Breakdown Based on “Emotional Outburst”, Not Rape: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Case Post-Divorce SARFAESI | Deposit Before Bank Can’t Be Treated as Statutory Pre-Deposit Before DRAT: Kerala High Court Truth Cannot Be Gagged by Injunction: Madras High Court Refuses Celebrity Chef’s Plea to Restrain Allegedly Defamatory Social Media Posts on Intimate Relationship Probate Not Mandatory for Will Executed in Keonjhar – Civil Court Can Decide Title Based on Unprobated Will: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Daughter’s Suit Against Valid Gift to Nephew

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