Supreme Court Acquits Three Men in 1997 Karnataka Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence
The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of three men—Mallappa, Hanamanth, and Dharamanna—who were previously convicted by the Karnataka High Court for the murder of Marthandappa. The Court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient, and the High Court erred in reversing their acquittal without substantial legal grounds.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 28, 1997, when Marthandappa was brutally assaulted and killed while traveling in a bullock cart. The prosecution alleged that the three accused, along with five others, attacked him with axes, clubs, and knives due to a personal dispute. Eight accused persons were put on trial. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence.
However, the Karnataka High Court overturned the acquittal of the three appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment in 2010. The three convicted men then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had wrongly overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal without properly considering the evidence.
Arguments by the Appellants
- The High Court reappreciated the evidence without identifying any legal errors in the Trial Court’s judgment.
- Key prosecution witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, provided contradictory and unreliable testimonies.
- Their conduct after the incident raised serious doubts about their credibility.
- PW-3, an alleged eyewitness, did not inform the police immediately and delayed reporting the incident for over 18 hours.
- PW-4, who claimed to be injured in the attack, gave inconsistent statements regarding the nature and timing of his injuries.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Karnataka)
- The High Court had the authority to reverse an acquittal if the Trial Court failed to appreciate evidence correctly.
- PW-4 was an injured witness, and his testimony should be considered credible.
- The post-mortem report corroborated the injuries and manner of assault described by the prosecution witnesses.
- The motive for the crime was clearly established, and the accused had strong reasons to commit the murder.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Presumption of Innocence in Acquittal Cases
The Court reiterated that an acquitted person enjoys a stronger presumption of innocence, and the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s verdict unless there was a clear miscarriage of justice.
2. Witness Credibility and Conduct
The Court found PW-3’s behavior highly questionable, as he did not report the crime immediately despite having multiple opportunities. Similarly, PW-4’s testimony contained inconsistencies, particularly regarding his medical records and statements about when and how he was injured.
3. Failure to Establish a Clear Chain of Circumstances
The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, which failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in witness statements and medical reports weakened the case further.
4. High Court’s Error in Reversing Acquittal
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court did not provide strong enough reasons to overturn the acquittal. The Trial Court’s decision was based on plausible interpretations of the evidence, and there was no reason to disturb it.
Final Judgment
- The Supreme Court overturned the Karnataka High Court’s decision and reinstated the Trial Court’s acquittal.
- The three appellants were ordered to be released immediately if they were still in custody.
- The Court emphasized that acquittals should not be reversed lightly unless there is compelling evidence to do so.
Legal and Social Implications
1. Importance of Witness Credibility
This case reinforces that courts must scrutinize witness statements carefully, especially in serious criminal cases.
2. Safeguarding the Rights of the Accused
The ruling ensures that individuals are not wrongfully convicted based on weak evidence.
3. Precedent for Future Acquittal Appeals
The judgment sets a benchmark for appellate courts, emphasizing that acquittals should not be overturned without strong justification.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the critical role of fair trial principles in the criminal justice system. By reinstating the acquittal of the three appellants, the Court reaffirmed that convictions must be based on strong and credible evidence. This decision serves as an important reminder of the judiciary’s duty to protect against wrongful convictions and uphold the presumption of innocence.
Petitioner Name: Mallappa, Hanamanth, Dharamanna.Respondent Name: State of Karnataka.Judgment By: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.Place Of Incident: Karnataka.Judgment Date: 12-02-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: mallappa,-hanamanth,-vs-state-of-karnataka-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-02-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
