Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : M/S. S Legal Associates, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Prathap, Adv. Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. Mr. Kushal U, Adv. Mr. Shivam Parashar, Adv. Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _ OF 2026

(Against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench)

BETWEEN:

[Name of the Appellant(s)]
...Appellant(s)

AND

The State of Karnataka
...Respondent

---

NOTICE OF APPEAL

1. The appellant(s) hereby appeal(s) against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 100190/2019 and 100284/2019, whereby the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the appellant(s) for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The appellant(s) respectfully submit(s) that the High Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, which was based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record. The trial court's conclusion was a plausible view, supported by the evidence, and the High Court failed to consider that when two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal merely because another plausible view exists (!) .

2. The High Court overlooked the principles that an order of acquittal can only be overturned if it is patently unreasonable, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The view taken by the trial court was a reasonable and possible inference from the evidence, and the High Court's decision to reverse it was unjustified (!) (!) (!) .

3. The appellate court's interference was also unwarranted because the trial court's findings were based on a proper assessment of the evidence, and there was no clear perversity or misapplication of law. The High Court failed to recognize that the evidence relied upon did not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant(s) beyond reasonable doubt, and alternative plausible interpretations of the evidence existed (!) .

4. The appellant(s) further contend(s) that the High Court did not adequately reappreciate the entire evidence and failed to give due weight to the plausible view taken by the trial court. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the original order of acquittal should be restored (!) .

PRAYER

1. In view of the above grounds, the appellant(s) respectfully pray(s) that this Hon’ble Court:

a. Admit this appeal and call for the records from the High Court;
b. Set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2023;
c. Restore the order of acquittal passed by the trial court;
d. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. Costs of this appeal may also be awarded in favor of the appellant(s).

2. The appellant(s) hereby declare(s) that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation and that all facts stated are true to the best of his/her/its knowledge and belief.

Place: ___
Date: _____

Signature of the appellant(s) or Advocate for the appellant(s)
[Name and Address of the Advocate]