Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High 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