Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt Hostile Witness Cannot Erase a Bribe Demand Already Made on Record: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Ration Officer Three Decades of Unpaid Wages: Supreme Court Strips Gannon Dunkerley of Control Over Sick Company's Assets, Appoints Administrator to Pay Workers by August 2026 Gram Nyayalaya Cannot Touch Family Court's Maintenance Orders — Allahabad High Court Draws the Line Caste Abuse Allegation at Village Jatra Is Counter-Blast to Earlier Machete Attack: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite SC/ST Act Bar Contributory Negligence | Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Madras High Court Air Force Can't Punish Officer After Criminal Court Sets Him Free: Supreme Court Overturns 30-Year-Old Dismissal Written Statement Without Affidavit of Admission/Denial: Non-Est Filing or Curable Defect? Delhi High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench Bank's Negligence Killed Cheque Bounce Case Before It Could Begin: Supreme Court Rules Section 138 Remedy Lost Due to Stale Cheques Bank Letting Your Cheques Go Stale Is Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Benefit Of Probation Act Available Even If Offender Is Sentenced Solely To Fine: Supreme Court Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court CBSE Cannot Cancel Class XII Results Based on Similar MCQ Answers Alone Without Any Report of Malpractice From Examination Centre: Orissa High Court Magistrate Cannot Summon Bank Officials in Routine Manner on Vague Complaint: J&K High Court Sets Aside Process Insurance Company Cannot Be Blamed When Tribunal's Own Summons Go Unserved and Untraced: HP High Court Remands Motor Accident Claim for Fresh Evidence Dead Body in Accused's Own Office, Employee Killed For Wanting Business in His Name — Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Discharge Petition in Sudha Dairy Murder Case Menstrual Leave Is Not a Privilege — It Is a Constitutional Right: Karnataka High Court Directs Strict Implementation of Menstrual Leave Policy Cheque Bounce Case Collapses When Complainant Can't Explain Source of Rs. 35 Lakh Cash Payment: Chhattisgarh High Court

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