Conviction based on circumstantial evidence set aside due to broken chain of links and inadmissible voluntary statements.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 7 (Sukanya) and Accused No. 1 (Bharathkumar) were in an illicit relationship and conspired to kill Sukanya’s husband, Ganesh.

Accused No. 1 allegedly hired Accused No. 6, who engaged Accused Nos. 2–5 as ‘supari’ (contract) killers for ₹6,00,000.

On April 5, 2015, the assailants allegedly lured Ganesh to a railway track near a Jain Mandir, where Accused No. 2 slit his throat and Accused No. 3 stabbed his stomach, resulting in his death.

The Trial Court convicted A-1, A-6, and A-7 under Section 120B IPC (Conspiracy) and A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC (Murder), while acquitting A-4 and A-5.

The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court of Karnataka.

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.

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC based on circumstantial evidence.

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

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

It further cited *Subramanya v. State of Karnataka* and *Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh*, noting that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, even if matching the victim's blood group, is insufficient for a murder conviction without a complete chain of circumstances.

Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were applied regarding the admissibility of confessional statements and discoveries.

Regarding conspiracy, the Court found no material evidence beyond the inadmissible voluntary statements of the accused; there was no proof of meetings, mobile communication (CDR stood in a third party's name), or payment of 'supari' money.

Regarding the murder charge against A-2 and A-3, the prosecution relied solely on the recovery of knives (MO13, MO14) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court observed that the recovery witnesses (PW2 and PW4) were not locals but relatives/acquaintances of the deceased’s father, making their testimony less reliable.

Critically, the prosecution failed to establish the "last seen" theory, the mode of transport used by the accused from Andhra Pradesh to the crime scene, or any link connecting A-6 to A-2 and A-3.

The Court held that even if the FSL report showed the victim's blood group on the weapons, this lone circumstance could not sustain a conviction when the rest of the chain was broken.

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2018.

All appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, and A-7) were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.

Fine amounts, if paid, were ordered to be refunded.