Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Inadequate Evidence: Eyewitness Testimony and Extra-judicial Confession Deemed Unreliable

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the accused in a murder case, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction. The Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the order on July 27, 2023, in Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2011.

The case pertained to the murder of one Shanmugam on August 6, 1994, where two accused, Kadira Jeevan (A-1) and B.S. Dinesh (A-3), were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 112 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was based on the testimony of an eyewitness (PW-1) and an extra-judicial confession reported in a newspaper.

The Court noted that the eyewitness's presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to inconsistencies in his statements and contradictions with other witnesses. The Court stated, "Presence of PW-1 at the time of the shooting at the place of incident is difficult to accept...it is not conclusively established that PW-1 was an eye-witness to the shooting incident."

Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the Court cited, "Newspaper reports can at best be treated as secondary evidence...an extra-judicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper."

Furthermore, the Court observed that the evidence did not prove the existence of a common intention or conspiracy among the accused. The Court held, "Merely because the car had slowed down and then sped away after the shooting without anything further, cannot be the basis to rope in A-3 (accused No. 3) who was the driver in the car. It would not attract common intention for all the occupants in the car when the shooting was carried out by A-8."

Based on these critical findings, the Bench ordered the acquittal of both Kadira Jeevan (A-1) and B.S. Dinesh (A-3) and discharged their bail bonds.

This judgment highlights the importance of credible evidence and the need to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring justice prevails in the face of uncertainty and hearsay.

Date of Decision: July 27, 2023

DINESH B.S. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA                                

Latest Legal News