Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“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