Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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