The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group!

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

Similar News