Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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