The Supreme Court has allowed the appeals filed by the accused and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment convicting them for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 506 IPC, restoring the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, and that the High Court erred in reversing a plausible view of acquittal taken by the Trial Court.
The prosecution’s case originates from a missing complaint and subsequent allegations of conspiracy, abduction, murder, and disappearance of evidence relating to one Martandgouda (deceased), resident of village Hulkoti, District Gadag. The suspicion was later cast on the accused due to alleged land disputes and strained personal relationships. The prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence, including motive, conspiracy, last-seen theory, recovery of the dead body, and the testimony of PW-5, projected as the sole eyewitness.
After trial, the Sessions Court, Gadag, by judgment dated March 30, 2019, acquitted all the accused, holding that the evidence was insufficient and riddled with inconsistencies. However, the Karnataka High Court, by judgment dated November 28, 2023, reversed the acquittal and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4, while maintaining acquittal of the remaining accused. This conviction was challenged before the Supreme Court.
While examining the appeals, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi closely scrutinised the evidence. The Court found that PW-5’s testimony was unreliable, noting an unexplained delay of 21 days in recording his statement, contradictions between his statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, his failure to alert the police despite opportunities, and his admission that the accused were strangers to him. The Court also observed that medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution’s timeline, as the post-mortem suggested death occurred much later than alleged.
The Court further held that the theory of conspiracy and motive remained speculative, unsupported by cogent evidence. Crucial witnesses involved in recovery of the dead body were not examined, and reliance on disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, without proper corroboration, was held insufficient to sustain conviction. Importantly, the Court reiterated that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, particularly in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence.
Reiterating settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Supreme Court held that where the Trial Court’s view is a possible and reasonable view, the appellate court cannot interfere merely because another view is possible. Finding no perversity or misreading of evidence in the Trial Court’s judgment, the Court held that the High Court overstepped its appellate jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated November 28, 2023, restored the Trial Court’s acquittal dated March 30, 2019, and directed that the appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeals were allowed.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : M/S. S Legal Associates, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Prathap, Adv. Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. Mr. Kushal U, Adv. Mr. Shivam Parashar, Adv. Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR
