The Supreme Court of India restored acquittal in a 15-year-old murder case after finding the sole eyewitness to be planted and unreliable. The Court held that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and wrongly overturned a plausible trial court acquittal.
The Supreme Court of India has restored the acquittal of the accused in a 15-year-old murder and abduction case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the so-called sole eyewitness was unreliable and appeared to be a planted witness.
The Apex Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the second and third accused against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had overturned the acquittal granted by the Trial Court and convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Six Juvenile Accused in Shahabas Murder Case
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi carefully examined the evidence on record and strongly criticised the prosecution’s version of events.
The Bench observed,
“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 PW5 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.”
The Court further held that the prosecution had not been able to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. It clearly stated,
“The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain 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.”
The case arose from a missing persons complaint relating to one Martandgouda, who later turned out to be the deceased. His son had initially approached the Gadag Rural Police Station stating that his father was missing, following which an FIR was registered as a missing person case.
During the investigation, the complainant gave a further statement alleging suspicion against his uncle, who was named as the first accused, due to ongoing civil disputes over land and property. These disputes included litigation filed by the sister of the first accused, allegedly at the instance of the deceased.
Suspicion was also raised against Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa, the second accused, described as a close associate of the first accused and a signatory to certain sale deeds. Ningappa, the third accused, who was a former tenant of the deceased, was also implicated.
The prosecution additionally claimed that the fourth accused had an illicit relationship with the deceased and that she had absconded from the village around the time he went missing.
Based on these allegations, the prosecution alleged that all the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy, abducted the deceased, murdered him, and disposed of his body to destroy evidence.
After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against six accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 149. The Trial Court, however, extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused and acquitted them.
The High Court later reversed this finding and convicted the first four accused under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while confirming the acquittal of the fifth and sixth accused. During the pendency of proceedings before the High Court, the fourth accused passed away.
The Supreme Court closely analysed the testimony of PW-5, the driver of the Tempo Trax vehicle, who was projected by the prosecution as the sole eyewitness.
ALSO READ: Honeymoon Horror: Court Extends Remand of Wife & Lover in Businessman’s Murder Case
The Bench noted that PW-5 had admitted that the accused were strangers to him and yet he did not alert the police or raise any alarm when, according to him, the body was dumped into a canal. The Court also took note of his criminal antecedents, which seriously affected his credibility.
The Bench further pointed out inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s case. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem had stated that the death might have occurred around ten days prior, whereas the prosecution claimed that the deceased was killed on December 11, 2011, the very day he went missing.
The Court also observed that there was no reliable evidence to prove the alleged illicit relationship or any strong motive arising from personal grudge.
It was also significant that the High Court itself had rejected the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy insofar as the fifth and sixth accused were concerned. The Supreme Court noted this contradiction and observed,
“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.”
On the broader legal principle governing appeals against acquittal, the Bench reiterated settled law and held,
“ 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.”
After examining the entire material on record, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had failed to apply these well-established principles while interfering with the Trial Court’s acquittal.
ALSO TERE: Ankita Bhandari Murder Case: Court Convicts Ex-BJP Minister’s Son Pulkit Arya & 2 Others
As a result, the Apex Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, restored the acquittal, and directed that the appellants be released forthwith.
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik along with AOR M/s S Legal Associates and a team of advocates, while the respondent State was represented by AOR D. L. Chidananda along with other counsel.
Case Title:
Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. The State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 67
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Murder Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
