In a significant ruling that underscores the exacting standards required for conviction in criminal cases, particularly those based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court of India recently set aside a High Court judgment that had overturned acquittals. The case, involving allegations of conspiracy, abduction, and murder, serves as a masterclass in criminal jurisprudence, illustrating the delicate balance appellate courts must maintain when reviewing acquittals and the perils of relying on weak, uncorroborated testimony.
I. The Case at a Glance: From Missing Person
to Murder Conviction
The legal saga began in December
2011 in village Hulkoti, District Gadag, Karnataka, with a simple missing
person complaint. Martandgouda had vanished. What started as a routine police
inquiry (FIR No. 277/2011) soon transformed into a complex murder
investigation, with suspicion falling upon the deceased’s brother,
Veerupakshagouda (Accused No.1), and five others.
The prosecution’s theory wove a
tapestry of motive from various threads: civil land disputes between the
deceased and his brother, alleged illicit relationships, and grievances of
evicted tenants. It was alleged that all six accused conspired, abducted
Martandgouda on 11.12.2011, murdered him, and disposed of his body to conceal
the crime. After a full trial, the Sessions Court in Gadag, in a detailed
judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all accused. The court found the chain of
circumstantial evidence to be incomplete and broken, holding that mere
suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.
Unsatisfied, the complainant and
the State appealed to the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench). In a common
judgment dated 28.11.2023, the High Court took a starkly different view. It
convicted four of the original six accused (Accused 1-4) under Sections 302
(murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence),
and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the
Indian Penal Code, sentencing them primarily to life imprisonment. The
acquittals of Accused 5 & 6 were upheld.
It was against this conviction
that the appellants (Accused 1, 2, and 3) approached the Supreme Court.
II. The Core of the Controversy: Scrutinizing
the Prosecution’s Pillars
The Supreme Court’s analysis,
delivered by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, meticulously dismantled the foundations
upon which the High Court built its conviction. The prosecution’s case rested
on three shaky pillars: the testimony of a sole eyewitness, alleged disclosure
statements leading to discovery, and the motive of civil disputes.
A. The Unreliable
"Eyewitness": PW-5
PW-5, the driver of a tempo trax
vehicle, was projected as the star witness who saw the abduction and murder.
His testimony was riddled with fatal flaws:
1.Delay and Improbability:
His statement was recorded 21 days after the incident, and only after the
arrest of the accused. Such an inordinate delay in a witness coming forward to
claim knowledge of a murder, without a cogent explanation, casts serious doubt
on his credibility.
2.Inconsistent and Evolving
Story: His statements under Section 161 CrPC (to police) and Section 164
CrPC (before a Magistrate) were inconsistent. Crucially, he gave a
"complete go-by" to the involvement of Accused 5 & 6 in his
deposition, directly contradicting his earlier statements. He was partly
declared hostile.
3.Lack of Personal Knowledge:
He admitted in cross-examination that he did not know any of the accused
personally, making them complete strangers. This raised the critical question:
why would conspirators commit a murder in the presence of an unrelated
stranger?
4.Conduct Unbecoming of a
Witness: He claimed to have witnessed a brutal murder but did not raise an
alarm, inform the police, or make any attempt to intervene or report the crime
afterward. His explanation of a continuing "threat" was
unsubstantiated.
5.Questionable Credibility:
The record indicated PW-5 had criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court observed
that, considering these aspects, he could be considered a "planted
witness."
The Court held that relying
solely on such an untrustworthy witness for a conviction, especially in a
capital offence, was legally impermissible.
B. The Dubious
"Discovery" Under Section 27, Indian Evidence Act
The prosecution heavily relied on
the disclosure statements of Accused 2 to 4, allegedly leading to the discovery
of the deceased’s body from a canal. The Supreme Court found this evidence
gravely insufficient:
a. Non-examination of Crucial
Witnesses: The two individuals (CW-22 & CW-23) who physically retrieved
the body from the canal were never examined by the prosecution. Their testimony
was vital to prove the fact, manner, and location of the recovery, and its
absence created a major gap in the chain of custody and proof.
b. Tenuous Link to Accused
No.1: There was no recovery or discovery at the instance of the main
conspirator, Accused No.1. The alleged disclosures by other accused, without
stronger corroborative evidence, were insufficient to implicate him in the
conspiracy or murder.
c. Medical Evidence Raising
Doubts: The post-mortem doctor (PW-14) opined that death might have
occurred about 10 days prior to the examination on 04.01.2012. However, the
prosecution alleged the murder occurred on 11.12.2011, which was 24 days prior.
This discrepancy further weakened the prosecution's timeline and theory.
The Court concluded that a
conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of such poorly proved disclosure
statements and recovery.
C. The Alleged Motive: Civil
Disputes and Speculative Conspiracy
The motive alleged was rooted in
civil property disputes. The Supreme Court noted:
a. PW-1 (the complainant)
admitted the dispute between the deceased and his brother (A-1) was purely
civil, concerning ancestral property, with no history of prior threats or
violence.
b. PW-4 admitted the disputed
land was not even in the name of Accused No.1.
c. The Investigating Officer
(PW-21) conceded no material was found to establish prior enmity or agreement
between A-1 and the deceased.
d. The High Court itself
disbelieved the prosecution's convoluted theory of conspiracy involving illicit
relationships that implicated Accused 5 & 6, acquitting them. The Supreme
Court reasoned that if the broader conspiracy story was rejected, the
substratum of the case against the remaining accused, allegedly acting in
furtherance of that very conspiracy, collapsed.
III. The Cardinal Principle: Appellate
Interference in Acquittals
A substantial portion of the
Supreme Court’s judgment is dedicated to reiterating the settled law on how
appellate courts (High Court and Supreme Court) must approach appeals against
acquittal. The Court cited a catena of precedents, including Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand, to
distill the following governing principles:
1.Double Presumption of
Innocence: An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.
The accused benefits from the initial presumption and a second presumption
arising from the trial court’s finding of innocence.
2.Power to Re-appreciate, But
With Restraint: While an appellate court has full power to review and
re-appreciate evidence, this power must be exercised with caution and within
clear limits.
3.The "Plausible
View" Doctrine: If the view taken by the trial court is a possible or
plausible view based on the evidence, the appellate court cannot reverse the
acquittal merely because it feels another view (pointing to guilt) is also
possible.
4.Grounds for Interference:
Interference is warranted only in cases of:
a.Patent perversity in the trial court judgment.
b. Misreading or omission of
material evidence.
c. Where the conclusions of the
trial court are not reasonable or logically impossible.
d. Where the only possible
conclusion from the evidence is the guilt of the accused, and no other view is
reasonable.
The Supreme Court held that the
Trial Court’s acquittal was a perfectly plausible view based on the evidence.
The High Court erred by substituting its own view for that of the Trial Court,
without demonstrating that the Trial Court’s view was impossible or perverse.
The High Court failed to identify "compelling and substantial
reasons" required to overturn an acquittal.
IV. The Final Judgment: Restoring the
Acquittals
Applying these principles to the
facts, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case fatally flawed. The chain
of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and failed to point unequivocally to
the guilt of the appellants. The sole eyewitness was unreliable, the discovery
was not duly proved, the motive was weak and speculative, and the medical
evidence introduced doubt.
Consequently, the Supreme Court:
1.Allowed the criminal appeals
filed by the convicted accused.
2.Set aside the impugned judgment
and order of conviction dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
3.Restored the order of acquittal
dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court.
4.Directed the appellants to be
released forthwith if not required in any other case.
V. Conclusion: A Reaffirmation of Foundational
Rights
This judgment is a powerful
reminder of the core principles of criminal law: the presumption of innocence,
the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt," and the high
threshold for convicting on circumstantial evidence where every link in the
chain must be firmly established. It underscores that appellate courts must
respect the findings of the trial court, which has the unique advantage of
observing witness demeanor first-hand.
For the legal community, it
reaffirms the strict confines within which acquittals can be disturbed. For
citizens, it reinforces the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against wrongful
conviction, ensuring that liberty is not taken away on the basis of suspicion,
speculation, or unreliable testimony. In the end, the Supreme Court’s ruling
preserved the foundational edict: it is better that ten guilty persons escape
than that one innocent suffer.
Judgment Name: Tulasareddi
@ Mudakappa & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024, along with Veerupakshagouda vs. The State of Karnataka,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2542-2543 of 2024, decided on January 16, 2026.
0 Comments