Appeals
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Trial Court and thereby convicted the present appellants for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘IPC’), and sentenced them to :
(a) undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, each for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment.
(b)undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further six months imprisonment.
(c)undergo sentence for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further three months imprisonment.
(d)undergo sentence for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each, for an offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, in default, shall undergo for further two months imprisonment.
3. Factual Matrix
Information starts with man missing: (i) 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.
Son lodging the FIR about his missing father: (ii) On 16.12.2011 at about 15:45 hours, the son of the missing person lodged a complaint before Gadag Rural Police Station stating that his father, Martandgouda, had been missing since 11.12.2011. It was stated that the complainant was pursuing engineering studies at Laxmeshwar and had been informed by his mother that his father was not traceable. Upon returning to the village and making enquiries, the complainant was unable to locate his father, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No.277/2011.
During Investigation informant suspects his uncle: (iii) Initially, the FIR was registered as a missing person case. During the course of investigation, the complainant gave a further statement on 03.01.2012 alleging suspicion against his uncle, Veerupakshagouda (accused no.1), on account of prior civil disputes relating to land-property, including litigation instituted by the sister of accused no.1 against him, allegedly at the instance of the deceased.
Accused developed animosity towards deceased due to civil proceedings: (iv) It was further alleged that accused no.1 had developed animosity towards the deceased due to injunction orders obtained in civil proceedings. Suspicion was also cast upon Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa (accused no.2), stated to be a close associate of Accused No.1 and a signatory to certain sale deeds, and Ningappa (accused no.3), a former tenant of the deceased, who had allegedly been evicted from the land and had monetary disputes with the deceased.
Accused no.4 had illicit affair with the deceased and she absconded: (v) The prosecution further alleged that accused no.4 had an illicit relationship with the deceased and that she had absconded from the village around the time, the deceased went missing. On the basis of these allegations, it was asserted that all the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy, abducted the deceased on 11.12.2011, murdered him, and disposed of his dead body to screen themselves from punishment.
Final report filed against six person for s.302 and s.149 IPC: (vi) On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against six accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.37/2012.
Trial court proceedings and judgment
Trial Corut acquitted all the accused: (ix) Upon an exhaustive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all the accused of all charges. The Trial Court recorded findings that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the accused. The alleged motive was held to be weak and speculative; the theory of conspiracy was found to be unsubstantiated; and crucial links such as last seen together and recovery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
High court proceedings and impugned judgment
State and complainant preferred appeal in the High Court: xi) Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant and the State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.100190/2019 and 100284/2019 respectively before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
By common judgment High Court allowed both appeals and convicted the accused: (xii) By the common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023, the High Court allowed both the appeals and thereby set aside the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. The High Court convicted the accused nos. 1 to 4 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302, 120- B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the High Court has confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua original accused nos. 5 & 6. At this stage, it is relevant to note that during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court original accused no. 4 died.
Appellant preferred the present appeal: 4. Against the impugned judgment and order rendered by the High Court, the original accused no. 2 and 3 have preferred Criminal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 whereas original accused no.1 has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 2542-2543 of 2024 before this Court.
Analysis
Persons who recovered the dead body were not examined as witnesses
16. Having heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and having gone through the entire material placed on record as well as evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court, it would emerge that the occurrence took place on 11.12.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., when the deceased had gone missing. A complaint was lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station, Gadag on 16.12.2011 at 15:45 hours. PW-1, complainant was the son of the deceased whose statement was recorded by PW-18. Thereafter, further statement was given by informant on 03.01.2012 suspecting the involvement of accused nos. 1 to 4 due to land disputes between accused no. 1 and the deceased. In the said further statement the accused nos. 1 to 4 were named. It is pertinent to note that relying upon further statement alleging involvement of accused, accused nos. 2 to 4 were arrested on 04.01.2012 whereas accused nos. 5 & 6 were arrested on 05.01.2012. It is also relevant to note that after the arrest of accused nos.2 to 4, their confession statements were recorded on the very same day by the Investigating Officer and it is the case of the prosecution that relying upon the said confession statements, the dead body was recovered near the canal. From the record, it transpires that two persons took out the dead body from the canal. Though said two persons (CW-22 and CW-23) are the important witnesses, they have not been examined by the prosecution. It also transpires from the record that after the arrest of the accused on 04.01.2012 the statement of the so-called eyewitness PW-5 came to be recorded. It is surprising that though PW-5 is projected as eyewitness, he did not inform the police about the incident in question for a period of 21 days. The only explanation given by him for such delay is the threat given by the accused to him.
PW.5 could have very well informed the police when the accused dumped the body in the canal
20. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-5 it can be stated that the accused nos. 1 to 6 are complete strangers to him. It is also relevant to observe that when the accused got down from the vehicle and dumped the body in the canal during that time PW5 could have informed to the police about the incident by making telephone calls. The said witness did not raise an alarm. It has also come on record that PW-5 has accepted that there are criminal antecedents against him. Thus, looking to the aforesaid aspects, it can be said that PW-5 can be said to be a planted witness.
Post-Mortem report revealed that the death might have been occurred 10 days ago and does not match the date of death
22. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that PW-14, doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, has specifically stated that the death might have been occurred 10 days ago. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was missing on 11.12.2011 and killed by the accused on the same day. Thus, we are of the view that the medical evidence also does not fully support the case of the prosecution and raises doubt.
Conviction cannot be recorded simply relying upon the discovery of dead body which is not fully proved
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have mainly placed reliance upon confessional statements of the accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal. We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the accused had committed the alleged offences. We are of the further view that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based upon the evidence led by the prosecution.
26. At this stage, we would like to refer the decisions rendered by this Court on the aspect of interference of Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court.
Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring judgment regarding interference of appellate court in appeal against judgment has provided guildelines
29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal:
(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record;
(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’
(d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
(e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and
(f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
Conclusion
High Court did not consider the principles
30. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and the law laid down by this Court, if the entire evidence as well as the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are examined, we are of the view that the High Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect while dealing with the acquittal appeals.
Set aside the judgment
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka is hereby set aside and the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 30.03.2019 is restored.
32. The appellants are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are in custody and their presence is not required in any other case.
References
Judgments Cited or Involved
- Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026 INSC 67): The primary judgment where the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal.
- Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024 (8) SCC 149): Cited to outline the general principles regarding the powers of an appellate court when dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
- Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022 (3) SCC 471): Cited as a case that encapsulated legal positions regarding appellate powers after considering various earlier judgments.
- Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SCC 415): Cited for the principle that an appellate court has full power to review evidence but must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
- H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023 (9) SCC 581): Cited to summarize that an appellate court can only interfere if the only conclusion possible from the evidence is that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand (2020 (20) SCC 522): Cited to establish that a High Court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another view appears plausible to it.
- Kalyan v. State of U.P. (2001 (9) SCC 632): Cited for the rule that the view taken by a trial court should only be disturbed if there are compelling reasons to do so.
- Basappa v. State of Karnataka (2014 (5) SCC 154): Cited to illustrate that the High Court is not justified in reversing an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a plausible one.
- Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana (2002 (10) SCC 461): Referenced within the Basappa ruling to clarify that interference is only justified if the trial court’s view is one that no reasonable person would take.
- Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006 (10) SCC 313): Referenced within the Basappa ruling to reiterate that a plausible view by a trial court should not be reversed merely because a different view is possible.
- Ganpat v. State of Haryana (2010 (12) SCC 59): Cited for the principle that an order of acquittal should only be interfered with when it is clearly unreasonable or there are compelling and substantial reasons.
Acts and Sections involved
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
- Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
- Section 364: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
- Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 161: Examination of witnesses by police.
- Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate.
- Section 313: Power to examine the accused.
- Section 378: Appeal in case of acquittal.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved (Discovery of facts).
Party
Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. versus The State of Karnataka & Ors. (with Veerupakshagouda versus The State of Karnataka) - Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2542-2543 of 2024 - 2026 INSC 67 - January 16, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
