Supreme Court Acquits Two Men in Police Officer Murder Case: Lack of Evidence Cited
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena vs. The State of Karnataka, a high-profile criminal case concerning the murder of a police officer. The case had seen a trial court acquitting the accused, but the High Court later overturned the verdict, convicting them for life. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, citing serious lapses in evidence and procedural fairness.
Background of the Case
The case involved the alleged murder of a police officer by the appellants, Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena and another co-accused. The prosecution contended that the accused, carrying three weapons, waylaid the officer in broad daylight at a busy intersection and inflicted multiple fatal injuries.
The trial court examined 28 witnesses, numerous material exhibits, and medical records before acquitting the accused, citing serious doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The State appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the acquittal and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
Seeking to overturn their conviction, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Raised
- Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal.
- Whether the prosecution established a strong case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether inconsistencies in witness testimonies impacted the fairness of the trial.
- Whether the alleged dying declaration was credible.
Petitioners’ Arguments (Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena & Another)
- The appellants argued that they were falsely implicated due to previous enmity with a police officer.
- They highlighted that key prosecution witnesses were police officers who had a vested interest in securing a conviction.
- They questioned why, despite the alleged public setting of the crime, no independent eyewitness testimony was presented.
- They contended that the trial court had thoroughly scrutinized the evidence and found significant contradictions in the prosecution’s case.
- They pointed out that the so-called dying declaration was recorded 40 days after the incident and was introduced at the request of the police.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Karnataka)
- The prosecution maintained that the accused had a clear motive for the crime.
- They argued that the dying declaration was supported by multiple witnesses, including police officers.
- The State relied on medical evidence that corroborated the sequence of events presented by the prosecution.
- They contended that the High Court had correctly reversed the acquittal after thoroughly reviewing the evidence.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, ruled in favor of the accused, setting aside their conviction.
The Court observed:
“The trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses firsthand, and its well-reasoned decision should not have been overturned merely because the High Court held a different view.”
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
- The Court reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and appellate courts must exercise caution before reversing such decisions.
- The trial court had correctly noted that the alleged eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory.
- The alleged dying declaration was introduced 40 days after the incident and seemed influenced by police pressure.
- The High Court had failed to provide adequate reasoning for setting aside the trial court’s findings.
- The prosecution’s failure to produce independent eyewitnesses raised doubts about the case.
The Supreme Court ruled:
“In the conspectus of above, we are inclined to hold that the High Court did not undertake the exercise as mandated under Section 378 read with Section 384 CrPC in reversing the reasoned decision rendered by the trial court. Thus, the appeals are accordingly allowed. Consequently, the orders of conviction passed by the High Court stand set aside.”
Final Order
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s conviction order.
- The trial court’s acquittal verdict was restored.
- The accused were set free.
Key Takeaways
- Presumption of innocence must be respected: Appellate courts should not overturn acquittals unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
- Judicial review in criminal cases requires caution: Convictions should be based on strong, reliable evidence.
- Alleged dying declarations require scrutiny: If a declaration appears suspiciously delayed or influenced, courts should be cautious in accepting it.
- Eyewitness testimony should be independent: The absence of neutral, non-police eyewitnesses weakened the prosecution’s case.
This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high standards in criminal trials and ensuring that convictions are based on clear, credible, and independently verified evidence.
Petitioner Name: Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena.
Respondent Name: The State of Karnataka.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 12-12-2021.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: mohan-@-srinivas-@-s-vs-the-state-of-karnata-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-12-2021.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 Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by M.M. Sundresh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 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
