Sole Eye Witness Planted; Failure To Complete Entire Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal In 15-Yr-Old Murder Case

The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the common judgment of the Karnataka High Court, whereby the High Court had quashed and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Trial Court and convicted the appellants for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi stated, “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 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”, it added.

AOR M/S. S Legal Associates represented the Appellant, while AOR D. L. Chidananda represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution’s case originated from a missing persons complaint and the disappearance of evidence relating to one Martandgouda (deceased). The son of the missing person lodged a complaint before the Gadag Rural Police Station, stating that his father had been missing. Initially, the FIR was registered as a missing person case. During the course of the investigation, the complainant gave a further statement alleging suspicion against his uncle (first accused), on account of prior civil disputes relating to land-property, including litigation instituted by the sister of the first accused against him, allegedly at the instance of the deceased.

Suspicion was also cast upon Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa (second accused), stated to be a close associate of the first Accused and a signatory to certain sale deeds, as well as Ningappa (third accused), a former tenant of the deceased. The prosecution further alleged that the fourth accused had an illicit relationship with the deceased and that she had absconded from the village around the time the deceased went missing. It was thus asserted that all the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy, abducted the deceased, murdered him, and disposed of his dead body to screen themselves from punishment. On 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 of the IPC.

The Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused. The High Court convicted the first four accused persons for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302, 120- B, 201, 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the High Court confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court qua the fifth and sixth original accused. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the fourth accused died. Against the impugned judgment and order rendered by the High Court, the second and third accused preferred Criminal appeals.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the deposition of PW-5, the driver of the Tempo Trax vehicle, who was the sole eyewitness as projected by the prosecution. From his deposition, the Bench noted that the accused persons were strangers to him. The Bench further found that when the accused got down from the vehicle and dumped the body in the canal during that time, the witness could have informed the police about the incident by making telephone calls. However, the said witness did not raise an alarm.

The Bench was of the view that the medical evidence did not fully support the case of the prosecution, as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased had specifically stated that the death might have occurred 10 days ago. However, it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was missing on December 11, 2011 and killed by the accused on the same day.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution had failed to prove the aspect of an illicit relationship and grudge by leading cogent evidence. It was further noticed that the High Court had also not believed the story of conspiracy and involvement of the fifth and sixth accused with the other four accused. “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”, it added.

Dealing with the aspect of aspect of interference of Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court, the Bench 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.

On an examination of 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, the Bench held that the High Court had failed to consider the aforesaid aspect while dealing with the acquittal appeals. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and ordered the appellants to be released forthwith.

Cause Title: Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 67)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, AOR M/S. S Legal Associates, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Advocates Supreeta Patil, AOR M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, Advocates Anil C Nishani, Prathap, Krishna M Singh, Meenesh Dubey, J.K. Mishra, Vishwesh R Murnal, Kushal U, Shivam Parashar, Garv Vikas

Respondent: AOR D. L. Chidananda, AOR Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Shankar Divate, AOR Ankolekar Gurudatta

Click here to read/download Judgment