Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, J. B. PARDIWALA
T. G. Krishnamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and prosecution evidence (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. high court's reasoning for partial conviction (Para 5) |
| 3. argument on reliance on eyewitness testimony (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion and order from the court (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a prior dispute between PW1 and the first appellant regarding the possession and cultivation of the tank bed. On the fateful day all the accused persons numbering 8, armed with deadly weapons had assaulted PW1, PW27 and PW28 and the two deceased persons. All of them were taken to the hospital wherein the deceased Nos.1 and 2 succumbed to the injuries.
4. In the complaint registered, the occurrence having taken place in two different places was not mentioned. Before the Court the prosecution took a stand that the deceased No.1 was attacked in a different place along with PW1, PW27 and PW28 and thereafter the deceased No.2 was attacked in another place. The Trial Court held that the FIR being a document which merely sets the criminal law into motion and brings to notice that the offence has been committed is not expected to furnish graphic details. Accordingly, all the accused pe
(1) Principle “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” may not have unadulterated application to criminal jurisprudence.(2) Verdict of acquittal cannot be overturned without concrete reasons.
The High Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability, and medical evidence should support rather than contradict eyewitness accounts.
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
Doctrine of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
