Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Unexplained Non-Examination of the Scribe Renders Dying Declaration Doubtful - Restores Acquittal: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has restored the acquittal of several individuals convicted by the Karnataka High Court for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court, in its judgment dated November 6, 2023, underscored the unreliability of the dying declaration due to the absence of testimony from the scribe who recorded it.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, who presided over the appeal, pointed out critical gaps in the prosecution's case, particularly concerning the dying declaration which played a pivotal role in the convictions. "The dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is rendered nugatory as the person who took down such declaration was not examined," the bench observed.

The appellants had been convicted by the High Court after the trial court had acquitted them due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not provided cogent reasons for reversing the acquittal and had failed to appreciate the severity of the allegations to the full extent.

The apex court meticulously analyzed the testimonies and evidence presented during the trial, highlighting that the eyewitnesses did not reliably attribute specific roles to the accused. The evidence led was categorized into various heads, including ocular, dying declaration, circumstantial evidence, and recovery of incriminating material, none of which conclusively pointed to the guilt of the accused.

"Our conclusions, therefore, are thus," the Supreme Court stated, "the circumstantial evidence present on record does not point to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons, for the reasons discussed above."

Additionally, the court raised concerns over the recovery of the alleged weapons, questioning their linkage to the crime due to their discovery in public places accessible to many.

The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the High Court's judgment and restore the trial court's acquittal has reinforced the principle of the presumption of innocence in the Indian judicial system. The court directed the refund of fines paid by the accused and discharged their bail bonds, effectively closing a chapter on a legal battle that spanned several years.

This landmark judgment reiterates the crucial role of meticulous judicial scrutiny and the high evidentiary standards required for convictions in criminal cases.

Date of Decision:  6 November 2023

MANJUNATH & ORS. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Latest Legal News