Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana 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