Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Kidnapping Case - Insufficient Evidence

04 September 2024 9:43 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted K.H. Balakrishna, the appellant in a high-profile kidnapping case, citing insufficient evidence. The judgment, delivered on March 21, 2023, by Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, overturned the earlier convictions under Sections 366, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The apex court, in its judgment, emphasized the lack of substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's claims. Justice Pankaj Mithal, in his remarks, stated, "The impugned judgment and orders of the courts have completely failed to take into consideration the above aspects of the matter in holding the appellant guilty of the offenses solely on the basis of the statement of PW2, which as described above is not sufficient to prove the appellant guilty."

The case revolved around the alleged kidnapping of a woman, referred to as PW2, who had known the appellant since 1993. The victim's statement revealed a history of familiarity and an engagement that was ultimately called off due to the appellant's employment status. The court noted that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant forcibly took or kidnapped the victim against her will. Furthermore, the victim's conduct suggested a possible elopement, rather than an abduction.

Highlighting the absence of maltreatment or coercion during the period the victim and the appellant were together, the court stated, "The appellant behaved decently and assisted the victim in contacting her family members." The defense presented evidence supporting a marriage proposal between the appellant and the victim, which culminated in a temple wedding. The court found this evidence significant and highlighted the victim's apparent happiness and active participation in the ceremony.

Given the lack of conclusive evidence and the positive conduct of both parties since the alleged incident, the Supreme Court deemed the conviction and sentence untenable. "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that conviction and the sentence as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law," stated Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2023

K.H. BALAKRISHNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Latest Legal News