#prosecution burden

The Karnataka High Court upheld acquittal in an illicit liquor case after the prosecution failed to produce seized contraband, record its measurement, or secure independent witness testimony. This ruling reinforces that procedural negligence in evidence collection creates reasonable doubt, shifting the burden squarely onto the state to meet statutory proof standards under the Karnataka Excise Act - a critical precedent for all excise prosecutions in the state.

HP High Court reaffirms that prosecution must reconcile ocular testimony with medical and circumstantial evidence to secure conviction under IPC 323/324. Acquittal upheld where inconsistencies, lack of independent witnesses, and failure to establish locus standi undermined the case. Ruling underscores the burden on prosecution to meet evidentiary thresholds in assault cases.

Bombay High Court upholds acquittal in a bribery case, ruling that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the accused first demanded the bribe, not merely accepted it. The court also held that call detail records (CDR) are indispensable to establish phone-based bribery, setting a strict standard for corroboration.

Calcutta High Court sets aside conviction under Essential Commodities Act, holding that unscientific stock measurement and hostile witnesses invalidate proof beyond reasonable doubt.