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 :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to overturn the conviction rendered by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , (for short, ‘IPC') and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
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.
3. PW1 being the injured eye-witness, along with PW27 and PW28, is the author of the first information report. These three witnesses suffered fractures. PW1 has named all the appellants in the first informa
(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
