"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News