Acquittal in circumstantial case due to failure to prove conspiracy and complete chain of events.

The deceased, Ganesh, was allegedly murdered on April 5, 2015, near a railway track in Ramanagara.

The prosecution’s case was that Accused No. 7 (Sukanya, the deceased's wife) and Accused No. 1 (Bharathkumar) were in an illicit relationship and conspired to kill Ganesh.

Accused No. 1 allegedly hired Accused No. 6 (Maniraj) for a supari (contract killing) of Rs. 6,00,000/-, who then engaged Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 to execute the murder.

The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 under Section 120B of the IPC for conspiracy, and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for murder, primarily based on the recovery of blood-stained knives (MO13, MO14).

Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted.

The appellants challenged their convictions before the High Court of Karnataka.

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The court applied Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied heavily on the "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring a complete chain of evidence that excludes every hypothesis of innocence.

The Court further applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of information leading to discovery.

Mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, even with a matching blood group, is insufficient for a murder conviction without a complete evidentiary chain, as held in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh and State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman.

Regarding Issue 1, the Court found no cogent evidence of conspiracy.

PW1’s testimony about the illicit relationship was based on hearsay from unidentified persons, and no Call Detail Records (CDR) linked the accused to a common plan (Ex.P16 stood in the name of a third party, 'Karthik').

Regarding Issue 2, the case against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 rested solely on the recovery of knives (MO13, MO14).

The Court noted significant gaps: there was no "last seen" evidence, no proof of the accused traveling from Andhra Pradesh to the crime scene, and the recovery witnesses (PW2 and PW4) were close associates of the complainant rather than independent locals.

Applying the Sharad Birdichand Sarda test, the Court held that the "chain of circumstances" was broken.

Furthermore, the Trial Court erred in considering the entirety of the accuseds' voluntary statements as evidence, whereas Section 27 only permits the admission of the specific portion leading to the discovery of a fact.

The Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment dated May 28, 2018, and acquitted all appellants (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7) of the charges under Sections 120B and 302 r/w 34 IPC.

The Court ordered their immediate release and the refund of any fine amounts paid.