Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“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