Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Ex Parte Decree Obtained Behind Back of True Owner Confers No Title; Appellate Stage Cannot Be Used to Rescue a Fundamentally Flawed Claim: Supreme Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appeal Cannot Be Decided Without First Adjudicating Additional Evidence Application: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Only Allegation Quarrelling Is Not a Criminal Offence, Cannot Sustain Cognizance: Supreme Court Quash Proceedings Eye-Witness Survives 82 Pages of Cross-Examination: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Payment of Tax Receipts Is Not A Conclusive Proof of Possession of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Child Dies Inside Anganwadi Centre After Repeated Complaints About Exposed Wires Went Unaddressed: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance, Directs Statewide Safety Audit 'High Speed' Without Mentioning Approximate Speed Not Sufficient To Prove Rash And Negligent Driving Under Section 279 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court 'Reverse Passing Off' Is Not an Actionable Tort in Indian Trade Mark Law: Delhi High Court: SARFAESI E-Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Prosecuted For Undervaluation When DRT Has Affirmed Valuation: Jharkhand High Court Republishing Defamatory Facebook Post On Website Constitutes Fresh Offence of Defamation; Prior Publication In Public Domain No Defence: Kerala High Court One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Through Electronic Evidence Even If Complainant Turns Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Sand Theft Under BNS And Kerala Sand Act Can Be Prosecuted Simultaneously; Earlier Contrary View Per Incuriam: Kerala High Court Judge Overrules Own Judgment

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