Finding Of Guilt Can’t Be Recorded When There’s Missing Link: Karnataka High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing His Wife

The Karnataka High Court has acquitted a man who was accused of killing his wife in the year 2014.

Challenging the Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused husband filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court.

A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “The last seen theory, further more, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the victim were last seen alive and the victim was found dead is so small that possibility of any person, other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, the Court should look for some corroboration. Therefore, in the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the trial Court has committed error in holding accused No.1 guilty for the offence of murder. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage, in the sequence of events, the benefit of doubt thereof should be given to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of fact that, it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. When there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded.”

The Bench reiterated that suspicion, however, grave, it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.

Advocate C.H. Hanumantharayappa appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Sowmya R. appeared for the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the informant lodged a complaint before the police, alleging that, when he had been to his land in morning, he found a dead body of woman near the compound and security room with visible crushed injuries on her face, head, the chest bones were visible, since she sustained deep injuries on her head, chest etc., body was not identifiable. Her left toe was also cut. Hence, a case was registered and thereafter, the Appellant-accused husband was arrested, who recorded his voluntary statement and pursuant to that, other accused persons were also arrested. As per their voluntary statements, the accused husband fell in love with the victim (wife) and married her in the month of November 2013. Later, he developed illicit relationship with accused no. 8 namely Asha.

Hence, he allegedly subjected the victim to both physical and mental cruelty. Subsequently, Asha with intent to marry the accused, instigated him to torture the victim. All the accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the victim and hence, in December 2014, the accused husband along with other accused took the victim in an auto rickshaw to a land which was cultivated by the informant. It was alleged that accused Nos.4 and 5 gripped the victim from hind side and accused Nos.1 (husband) and 2 stabbed on her neck with knives and committed her murder. Then accused Nos.1 to 5 holding her by her tuft, hands and legs, shifted her to the place between compound and watchman shed, on confirming that she is dead, accused using the same knives allegedly peeled off her skin from scalp up to chest, cut her right forearm and left foot to cause disappearance of evidence and identification of dead body. Then they carried the peeled skin of the victim in a bag.

Motive behind the alleged crime was that the accused suspected about the victim’s character, refused to marry her, and he asked her to abort the child when she forced him to marry, but later married her when she threatened to lodge a complaint to the concerned Police. In the meanwhile, he fell in love with Asha and proposed to marry her. He decided to give divorce to the victim and marry Asha, due to which, the victim forwarded messages to the accused’s friends stating that, Asha is available to all. Hence, they decided to teach a lesson to the victim. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 498A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. This was under challenge before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “… motive is a double edged weapon which may lead to false implication or commission of crime by one rival party against the other rival party. Therefore, motive is only a corroborative piece of evidence. Unless other circumstances are proved, only based on motive circumstance, conviction cannot be placed.”

The Court remarked that it may not be a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect the evidence of the official witnesses, without good grounds.

“The official witnesses, i.e., Police, public servant hold significant evidentiary value, but their testimonies are not automatically superior; the Court weighs it based on quality, corroboration, consistency, and absence of bias, focusing on credibility over mere number, often requiring independent proof, especially for crucial facts, as their roles can introduce potential bias or official duties, demanding scrutiny for truthfulness. Hence, without the corroboration of the independent witnesses, recovery of MOs.12, 16 and 19 cannot be said to be proved”, it added.

The Court noted that the dead body was never subjected to DNA examination and therefore, there is nothing apart from the version of PW2 to establish the identity of the dead body.

“If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot straightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on accused No.1 to establish his innocence. In the instant case, the incident occurred in isolated place and the said place does not belong to accused No.1. Dead body was not discovered at his instance. Hence, there is no question of raising any presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act”, it further observed.

The Court was of the view that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and this case, thus, is of circumstantial evidence.

“It is, now, well settled principle that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances, so proved, must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis”, it enunciated.

The Court also said that there was much time gap between the time of death of the victim and alleged sighting of the accused and the victim together.

“In the light of the fact that, initially, a missing complaint was lodged alleging kidnap of the victim and later, the death intimation was communicated to the parents of the victim. Though accused No.1 allegedly confessed the crime before the Investigating Officer, but none of the independent witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution fails to examine the material witnesses, including seizure mahazar witnesses”, it added.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court remarked that the medical evidence would only point the offence having been committed, but unfortunately, the prosecution has not been able to connect accused to the crime.

“All the above aspects, when seen in the context of the case being dealt with by us, a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be difficult to connect accused No.1 to the crime. The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency creating significant gap, leading to other possible hypothesis as aforementioned. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt must be extended to accused No.1. In this light, the guilt of accused No.1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment is, thus, liable to be set aside”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Arun Kumar M. v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:54041-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment