2026 INSC 67

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 1 of 28

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

the concerned Trial Court and thereby convicted the present

appellants for committing the offences punishable under

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Crl Appeal No. 2120-2121 OF 2024 Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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

Karnataka

1

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 23 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 24 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.

28. In the case of Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand

2

, 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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,

16

th JANUARY, 2026