Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence NHAI Cannot Allege Corruption In Land Acquisition Awards While Simultaneously Compromising Them: Bombay High Court State Must Prove Land Acquisition, Citizen Cannot Be Forced To Prove A Negative Fact: Calcutta High Court Seriousness Of Offence Or Age No Bar For Juvenile's Bail Under Section 12 JJ Act: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 14-Year-Old Suppression Of Material Facts Must Be Palpable And Ex Facie To Vacate Ex Parte Injunction Under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC: Calcutta High Court Pendency Of Criminal Case At FIR Stage Is No Bar To Issuance Or Renewal Of Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take Place of Proof: Supreme Court Acquits in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court acquitted Raghunatha and Manjunatha in a murder case from Karnataka. The bench, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, underscored that "suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof," thereby overturning the convictions by the lower courts.

The key legal point addressed in this judgment revolved around the principles of proving guilt in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the established facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and should exclude all other hypotheses.

Raghunatha and Manjunatha were accused of murdering Ramu, based on circumstances including the 'last seen' theory, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon. The trial court had convicted them, and the High Court modified their conviction to Section 304 Part-I of IPC, sentencing them to 10 years of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court meticulously assessed the circumstances cited by the prosecution. On the 'last seen' theory, the Court observed that merely being near the crime scene with a weapon did not establish that the deceased was last seen with the appellants. The Court noted discrepancies in witnesses' testimonies regarding the appellants' presence near the crime scene.

Regarding the motive, the High Court had already found the prosecution's evidence on the alleged financial loss and enmity insufficient. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the motive.

On the recovery of the weapon, the Court noted that it was found in an open place, accessible to many, and such a circumstance, on its own, was not enough to convict.

Considering these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to an unmistakable conclusion of the appellants' guilt. The Court thus allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their immediate release.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2024

Raghunatha and Another Versus The State of Karnataka

Latest Legal News