Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 67
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2120-2121 OF 2024
TULASAREDDI @ MUDAKAPPA & ANR. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2542-2543 OF 2024
VEERUPAKSHAGOUDA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.01.16
15:33:23 IST
Reason:
the concerned Trial Court and thereby convicted the present
appellants for committing the offences punishable under
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 1 of 28
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 2 of 28
2. Since both sets of appeals arise from the same impugned
judgment and order of the High Court and pertain to the same
crime, trial, and appellate proceedings, they were heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. FACTUAL MATRIX
(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.
(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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 3 of 28
(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.
(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.
(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,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 4 of 28
abducted the deceased on 11.12.2011, murdered him, and
disposed of his dead body to screen themselves from
punishment.
(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
(vii) Charges were framed against all the accused on
20.10.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22
witnesses out of 32 cited witnesses and produced 41
documentary exhibits along with material objects. The defence
examined witnesses and produced documents in support of
their case. Statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(viii) The prosecution case mainly rested upon the deposition
given by PW-5 so-called eye-witness as well as on the basis of
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 5 of 28
circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive, last seen theory,
recovery, and conduct of the accused were sought to be relied
upon to establish the chain of circumstances.
(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.
(x) The Trial Court specifically held that mere suspicion,
however strong, could not take the place of proof, particularly
in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Consequently, benefit of doubt was extended to all the accused.
HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS AND IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
(xi) Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant and the State of
Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.100190/2019 and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 6 of 28
100284/2019 respectively before the High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
(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.
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.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-convicts,
learned AAG on behalf of the State of Karnataka (respondent
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 7 of 28
no.1) and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
informant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-convicts would mainly
submit that the only allegation against accused no. 1 is that he
allegedly conspired with the other accused to commit the offence.
There is no allegation of “last seen”, no allegation of participation
in abduction or committing murder of the deceased. It is further
submitted that there is no recovery at the instance of accused
no. 1. There are no eye-witnesses who have alleged that accused
no. 1 is connected with the incident in question.
7. Learned counsel further submits that conspiracy being a serious
criminal charge, cannot be presumed. It requires proof of
meeting of minds, a prior agreement, and concerted action
towards the commission of an illegal act. Mere suspicion,
association, or existence of civil disputes cannot serve as a
substitute for proof. In the present case, the prosecution has
failed to establish any of the foundational ingredients of
conspiracy. At this stage, it has been pointed out from the record
that PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that the dispute
between the deceased and accused no. 1 was purely civil in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 8 of 28
nature, arising from ancestral property matters and in fact no
prior threat, violence, or criminal conduct ever occurred. It is also
pointed out from the record that PW-4 admitted that the disputed
land stands in the name of Melagirigouda and not in the name of
accused no. 1 and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to
establish the motive on the part of accused no. 1 to commit
alleged offences. It has been further contended that PW-10 to
PW-13 have turned hostile. At this stage, it has been contended
that PW-21, the Investigating Officer had admitted that no
material was found during investigation to establish any enmity
between the deceased and accused no.1 or any agreement or
concerted action suggesting conspiracy.
8. Learned counsel further submits that PW-5, the so-called sole
eye-witness, did not attribute any active role to accused no. 1.
Further the said witness did not speak of any planning or
agreement involving the said accused.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in
Criminal Appeal Nos.2120-2121 of 2024 mainly submits that
PW-5 is projected as eye-witness. However, the statement of the
said witness came to be recorded after a period of 21 days and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 9 of 28
that too after the arrest of the accused. In fact, the said witness
contradicts his own statements recorded on 05.01.2012 and
28.01.2012. It is also pointed out that the said witness was
declared hostile as per the theory of the prosecution, qua accused
nos. 5 & 6 . Learned counsel further submits that PW-5 admitted
that a rope was in his car and it was not brought by the accused.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that PW-5 is not a reliable
witness and simply relying upon deposition given by the said
witness, conviction cannot be recorded. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submits that PW-14, the 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 (prior to the date of post-mortem). However, in fact the
dead body was found 21 days after the incident in question. It is,
therefore, urged that medical evidence does not support the
theory of the prosecution, despite which the High Court has
recorded the order of conviction qua the present appellants.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
prosecution has failed to prove the motive on the part of the
accused to commit the alleged offences. In fact, the recovery and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 10 of 28
discovery were also not duly proved. It has been pointed out that
two persons (CW-22 and CW-23) who have brought the body
from the canal have not been examined. Thus, the prosecution
has failed to examine crucial witnesses.
11. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on
record and, thereafter, acquitted all the accused. The said view
taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view and, therefore,
while considering the acquittal appeal filed by the State or the
informant, the High Court ought to have considered the aforesaid
plausible view taken by the Trial Court and ought not to have
interfered with the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
12. Per contra, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State as well as learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the present appeals. Learned counsel would
mainly submit that the prosecution has proved the case against
the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading
cogent evidence. As the Trial Court has committed grave error
while acquitting all the accused, the High Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 11 of 28
qua present appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that the voluntary disclosures made by accused
No. 2 to 4 leading to the discovery of the dead body at a site near
canal was within their special knowledge and hence admissible
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also
contended that accused no. 2 to 4 made disclosure statements
in which they disclosed that they took Martandagouda (deceased)
in the car driven by PW-5, later killed him and then tied the dead
body with cement slabs using bedsheet and dumped into the
canal water. It is contended that of course the aforesaid
disclosure statement falls within the purview of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act,1872, as they led to the discovery of facts. It
is also contended that the dead body was recovered on
04.01.2012 and it is not explained by the accused as to how they
came to possess the knowledge that the dead body was concealed
in the canal. Learned counsel would mainly place reliance upon
the deposition given by the sole eye-witness, PW-5. It is
submitted that merely because the statement of the said witness
was recorded after 21 days, the said statement cannot be
discarded solely on this ground. It is also contended that PW-5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 12 of 28
was treated as hostile as he did not disclose further facts in
respect of accused Nos. 5 & 6 and, therefore, simply because he
has been treated hostile, his evidence cannot be brushed aside
in toto.
13. Learned Advocates also submit that PW-14, Doctor who
conducted the post-mortem, has categorically opined that the
death was due to manual strangulation. Thus, it is contended
that the evidence of PW-14 also corroborates the evidence of PW-
5.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further contend that there
is sufficient evidence on record in the form of evidence of PW-1,
PW-4, PW-10 & PW-11 who have proved the motive on the part
of accused no. 1 to commit the alleged offences with the help of
the other co-accused. It has been contended that the deceased
filed a suit for partition and obtained an order of stay on
07.12.2011. Thereafter, the deceased went missing on
11.12.2011. Immediately after the deceased went missing,
accused No.1 had executed a sale deed on 16.12.2011 in favour
of his mother. The signatory to the sale deed is accused no. 2.
The accused no. 3 was tenant of the lands of the deceased and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 13 of 28
enmity against him because he was removed from cultivation of
his lands. Thus, it has been contended that the prosecution has
proved the motive on the part of the accused to commit the
alleged offences.
15. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that despite the aforesaid
evidence on record, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
same and thereby acquitted the accused and therefore, while the
appeals were filed by the present respondents before the High
Court, the High Court after reappreciating the entire evidence on
record has rightly taken the view which is the only plausible view.
Learned Advocate, therefore, urged that the High Court has not
committed any error while convicting the present appellants and
therefore both these appeals be dismissed.
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,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 14 of 28
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 15 of 28
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.
17. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-5, the driver of the tempo
trax vehicle is the sole eye-witness projected by the prosecution.
From the statement given by this witness under section 161 of
the code, it is revealed that accused nos. 2 to 6 got into his vehicle
in different stages. In the first stage, accused nos.4 and 6 along
with Martandagouda (deceased) boarded the vehicle, accused
no.6 sat next to him in the front seat. The vehicle moved towards
Gadag and after covering a distance of around 1½ KMs, accused
no.2 and 3 boarded the vehicle. When the vehicle was moving
further, accused no.2 directed him to take the vehicle towards
Asundi and when accused nos.2 and 3 boarded the vehicle,
accused nos.4 and 6 who were sitting on the either side of
Martandagouda (deceased), they sat in the rear portion of the
vehicle. It is further stated by PW-5 that during the course of
journey accused no.2 told the deceased as to why he is interfering
in the sale of land and thereafter, accused no.6 told to
Martandagouda (deceased) that he is having an eye on the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 16 of 28
accused no.6 whereas accused no.4 told to Martandagouda
(deceased) that is it not enough that she is available for him and
thereafter all of them started beating deceased by hands.
18. PW-5 has given the statement under section 164 of Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973, before the FCJM on 28.01.2012, as
per the case of prosecution. The said statement is produced vide
Exhibit P-18. As per the statement given under Section 164 of
the Code, PW-5 has stated that accused nos. 2 to 6 boarded his
vehicle on 11.12.2011. We have gone through both the
statements given by PW-5 before the police as well as the learned
Magistrate.
19. PW-5 has specifically deposed that only accused nos. 2 to 4
boarded his vehicle at different stages. At the first stage, accused
no. 4 and Martandagouda (deceased) who boarded the vehicle
and after some distance accused nos. 2 and 3 got into the vehicle.
During the course of his deposition, PW-5, has given complete
go-by to accused nos. 5 & 6. PW-5 has been partially treated as
hostile by the prosecution and certain suggestions are also made
to him. It is relevant to observe that PW-5 has specifically stated
that statement given under Section 164 given by him before the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 17 of 28
Court has not been read over to him. During the cross-
examination this witness also further admitted that he does not
know accused nos. 2 to 4 personally. Similarly, he does not know
even accused no. 1 personally.
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 PW-
5 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.
21. Further, in the present case, no cogent reason for the silence on
the part of PW-5 is forthcoming except the allegation that there
was a threat. However, after 11.12.2011, how the so-called threat
continued and persisted has not been brought to light. Further,
statement of PW-5 was recorded after the post-mortem of the
dead body of the deceased was conducted on 04.01.2012.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 18 of 28
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.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 19 of 28
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.
24. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused hatch the
conspiracy for killing Martandagouda (deceased). As per the case
of prosecution, one civil suit is filed by Martandagouda
(deceased) with regard to the land bearing survey nos. 332 and
329 of a particular village. It is the case of the prosecution that
injunction was granted in favour of Martandagouda (deceased)
and restraining the defendant (accused no.1) from alienating the
suit property. As per the case of the prosecution, accused no. 2
is also interested in selling the land belonging to his mother.
Whereas the accused no. 3 was cultivating the land of
Martandagouda (deceased) on sharing basis. However, the
deceased did not allow accused no. 3 to cultivate the land. So far
as accused no. 4 is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution
that she had illicit relationship with Martandagouda (deceased).
So far as accused no. 6 is concerned, she is the paternal aunt of
accused no. 1 whereas accused no. 5 is the paramour of accused
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 20 of 28
no. 6. It is the theory of the prosecution that the deceased had
asked accused no.4 to bring along with her accused no.6 for illicit
physical relationship and this fact was communicated to accused
no. 5 by accused no.4. Thus, accused no. 4 had become furious
and had a grudge on deceased. Similarly, accused no. 6 had a
grudge that she was called for illicit physical relationship by
Martandagouda (deceased). Further, accused no. 5 had a grudge
on deceased as deceased had called accused no. 6 for illicit
physical relationship. As a result of the aforesaid grudge of each
of the accused, they decided to eliminate Martandagouda
(deceased) and thereby hatch conspiracy.
25. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has failed to prove the
aforesaid aspect by leading cogent evidence and in fact the High
Court has also not believed the story of conspiracy and
involvement of accused nos. 5 and 6 with the accused nos. 1 to
4. Thus, the High Court has confirmed the order of acquittal
passed by the trial court, qua accused nos. 5 & 6. In view of the
above, we are of the view that conviction of the accused nos. 1 to
4 cannot be sustained.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 21 of 28
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.
27. In the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of
1
Karnataka this Court held in paragraphs 39 to 42 as under:
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar,(2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri)
31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after
considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC
pp.482-83, para 29)
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words:
(Chandrappacase [Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri)325], SCC p. 432, para 42)
‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
1
2024 (8) SCC 149
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 22 of 28
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available
to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D.
Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3
SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC as follows :
(SCC p. 584, para 8)
“8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. 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;
8.4.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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 23 of 28
8.5. 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.”
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused
has to be exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment
of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the
above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial court.
2
28. In the case of Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand , this Court
has observed and held in para 19 & 20 as under:
“19. In a case like this when the trial court acquitted the
accused persons of their charges, the High Court could not
have reversed the finding merely on the basis that other view,
as recorded by the High Court, appeared to it to be a plausible
view. Such an approach by the High Court, against the
judgment of the acquittal, is impermissible. In this context, we
may usefully refer to Kalyan v. State of U.P. [Kalyan v. State of
U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 780] wherein it was
held : (SCC pp. 640-41, paras 15, 18 & 20)
“15. … The view taken by the trial court could have
been disturbed only if there were compelling
2
2020 (20) SCC 522
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 24 of 28
reasons. We do not find any compelling reason
noticed [State of U.P. v. Hari Lal, 1998 SCC OnLine
All 1216 : 1999 All LJ 142] by the High Court while
setting aside the order of acquittal.
18. Even if another view regarding the occurrence
was possible, as taken by the High Court, the
same could not be made a basis for setting aside
the order of the trial court in view of the settled
position of law on the point.
20. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed
by setting aside the judgment of the High Court
convicting the accused persons and sentencing
them to various imprisonments including life
imprisonment. We uphold the order of acquittal
passed by the trial court in favour of the
appellants.”
20. In another judgment in Basappa v. State of
Karnataka [Basappa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 154
: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 497] , this Court noticed plethora of
judgments where this very principle had been adopted, as can
be seen from the following discussion therefrom : (SCC pp. 158-
61, paras 11-12, 14 &; 17-18)
“11. In Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana [Bhim
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 1469] , it has been clarified that
interference by the appellate court against an order
of acquittal would be justified only if the view
taken by the trial court is one which no reasonable
person would in the given circumstances, take.
12. In Kallu v. State of M.P. [Kallu v. State of M.P.,
(2006) 10 SCC 313 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 546] , it has
been held by this Court that if the view taken by
the trial court is a plausible view, the High Court
will not be justified in reversing it merely because
a different view is possible.…
14.In Ganpat v. State of Haryana [Ganpat v. State
of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 59 :(2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
309] , SCC para 15, some of the above principles
have been restated. To quote : (SCC p. 62)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 25 of 28
‘15. The following principles have to be kept in
mind by the appellate court while dealing with
appeals, particularly, against an order of acquittal:
(iv) 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.’
17. … It is not the stand of the High Court that
there had been some miscarriage of justice in the
way the trial court has appreciated the evidence.
On the contrary, it is the only stand of the High
Court that on the available evidence, another view
is also reasonably possible in the sense that the
appellant-accused could have been convicted. In
such circumstances, the High Court was not
justified in reversing the acquittal.…
18. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
[State of Karnataka v. Basappa, 2010 SCC OnLine
Kar 5110] is set aside and that of the trial court is
restored.”
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:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 26 of 28
(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.
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.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 27 of 28
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.
33. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
………………………………J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI,
th
16 JANUARY, 2026
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 28 of 28