Facts
The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 (Bharathkumar) and Accused No. 7 (Sukanya) were in an illicit relationship and conspired to kill Sukanya’s husband, Ganesh (the deceased).
Source reference: p. 7Accused No. 1 allegedly hired Accused No. 6 to execute the murder for a *supari* (contract) of Rs. 6,00,000, who in turn engaged Accused Nos. 2–5.
Source reference: p. 7-8On April 5, 2015, Ganesh was murdered near a railway track.
Source reference: p. 8The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 for criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for murder (Section 302/34 IPC), while acquitting Accused Nos. 4 and 5.
Source reference: p. 10The Appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no established chain of events.
Source reference: p. 10-15Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC?
Source reference: p. 19, para. 132. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC?
Source reference: p. 19, para. 13Law Applied
The Court applied Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
Source reference: p. 10For cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Court relied on the *Panchsheel* principles established in *Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring that the circumstances be fully established, consistent only with guilt, and form a complete chain excluding any hypothesis of innocence.
Source reference: p. 23-24, para. 16It further applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the limited admissibility of information leading to discovery.
Source reference: p. 49, para. 45It cited *Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh* to affirm that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon matching the victim’s blood group is insufficient for a murder conviction without a complete chain of links.
Source reference: p. 48, para. 44Reasoning
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy under Section 120B as there was no evidence of meetings, phone records (CDR), or financial transactions (*supari* money) to link Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 beyond the inadmissible voluntary statements.
Source reference: p. 20-22Regarding the murder charge against Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Court noted that while knives (MO13, MO14) were recovered, the panch witnesses (PW2, PW4) were not local residents but close associates of the complainant/father of the deceased from another state.
Source reference: p. 52-53There was no "last seen" evidence, no proof of travel from Andhra Pradesh to the crime scene, and no identification parade.
Source reference: p. 54The Court observed that even if the FSL report showed the victim's blood group on the weapons, it could not sustain a conviction because the prosecution failed to establish the "last seen" theory or any prior connection between the hired killers and the conspirators.
Source reference: p. 54-55, 57The Court concluded the investigating officer failed to bridge critical gaps in the circumstantial chain.
Source reference: p. 59-60Holding
The High Court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the Trial Court's conviction was based on conjecture rather than a complete chain of evidence.
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment dated May 28, 2018, and acquitted all Appellants (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7) of all charges.
Source reference: p. 61The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants and the refund of any fines paid.
Source reference: p. 61-62Original Court PDF
Sukanyavs.State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1254/2018 c/w 988/2018, 1114/2018, 1153/2018, and 1154/2018]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in