High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Conviction in Murder Case: ‘Chain of Circumstances Clearly Incomplete’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On September 6, 2023 – In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court of Karnataka’s conviction of the appellant in a murder case under Section 302 of the IPC. The apex court bench, comprising Justices VIKRAM NATH and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, stated that the “chain of circumstances is clearly incomplete,” thereby allowing the appeal and discharging the appellant from the liability of his bail bonds.

The case revolved around the reversal of an acquittal by the High Court, which had convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence and the ‘last seen theory.’ The Supreme Court, however, found major discrepancies between the charge framed and the testimonies of witnesses regarding who was last seen with the deceased. “This raised doubts about the veracity of the statements and the application of the ‘last seen theory,’” the Court observed.

The judgment further noted that there was a significant time gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body. “In the absence of corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant,” the Court stated.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the principle of the presumption of innocence, stating that in cases of acquittal, there is a “double presumption in favor of the accused.” The Court added, “When two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be preferred.”

Legal experts see this judgment as a significant reiteration of the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The judgment has been lauded for its meticulous examination of the evidence and its upholding of the principles of justice and fairness. With this decision, the Supreme Court has once again asserted the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023

SREENIVASA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Latest Legal News