MANJUNATH & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

MANJUNATH & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration (Ext. P1) could not be relied upon because the person who reduced it to writing was not examined and the police endorsement did not identify the scribe, the doctor testified that many people were present when the statement was recorded and did not establish the deceased's capacity to sign, ocular witnesses were inconsistent and not of 'sterling' quality, circumstantial evidence and recoveries did not unerringly point to the guilt of the appellants, and therefore the High Court erred in overturning the trial court's acquittals; the High Court's convictions and sentences were set aside and the trial court acquittals restored.

Parties
Appellant: Manjunath (s/o Bachanna); Appellant: Ramegowda (s/o Bachanna); Appellant: Ramappa (s/o Narayanappa); Appellant: Ramesh (s/o Chikka Venkatarayappa); Appellant: Manjunath (s/o Ramappa); Appellant: Dyavappa (s/o Narayanappa); Respondent: State of Karnataka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment; Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; trial court acquittals restored
Legal Topics
Dying Declaration, Ocular Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Recovery and Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, Section 32, Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 378 Cr PC, Application of IPC Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504, 506 R/w 149 and 304 Part II
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Dying Declaration Ocular Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Recovery and Section 27, Indian Evidence Act Section 32, Indian Evidence Act +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjunath (s/o Bachanna)

Appellant

Ramegowda (s/o Bachanna)

Appellant

Ramappa (s/o Narayanappa)

Appellant

Ramesh (s/o Chikka Venkatarayappa)

Appellant

Manjunath (s/o Ramappa)

Appellant

Dyavappa (s/o Narayanappa)

Appellant

State of Karnataka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment; Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dying declaration (Ext. P1) was admissible and reliable given that the scribe who wrote it was not examined and the police endorsement did not identify the scribe
  2. 2 Whether the ocular and circumstantial evidence on record was sufficient to justify overturning the trial court's acquittal
  3. 3 Whether recoveries and discoveries satisfied the requirements of Section 27, Indian Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration (Ext. P1) could not be relied upon because the person who reduced it to writing was not examined and the police endorsement did not identify the scribe, the doctor testified that many people were present when the statement was recorded and did not establish the deceased's capacity to sign, ocular witnesses were inconsistent and not of 'sterling' quality, circumstantial evidence and recoveries did not unerringly point to the guilt of the appellants, and therefore the High Court erred in overturning the trial court's acquittals; the High Court's convictions and sentences were set aside and the trial court acquittals restored.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; trial court acquittals restored

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 21.09.2010 of the High Court of Karnataka in CRLA No.1795 of 2004 set aside
  • Judgment and order dated 25.09.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Kolar acquitting all accused restored