138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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