Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme 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