1. Appeal against High Court reversal of acquittal for offences of conspiracy, abduction, and murder, triggered by a missing person report and land-property disputes. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024
With
Veerupakshagouda – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2542-2543 of 2024
Decided On : 16-01-2026
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
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
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb findings of acquittal recorded by Trial Court on the ground that another view was also possible.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 – Murder, conspiracy, disappearance of evidence and criminal intimidation – Common intention – Circumstantial evidence – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Simply relying upon so-called confessional statements of accused and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded – Sole so-called eyewitness cannot be said to be reliable and other circumstances upon which prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that accused have committed alleged offences – Prosecution has failed to prove aspect of illicit relationship by leading cogent evidence – Prosecution has failed to complete entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that accused had committed alleged offences – View taken by Trial Court was a plausible view based upon evidence led by prosecution – If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb findings of acquittal recorded by Trial Court on the ground that another view was also possible – Judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and judgment and order of Trial Court restored. (Paras 23, 25, 29 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have preferred present appeals challenging common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, whereby High Court has quashed and set aside order of acquittal passed by Trial Court and thereby convicted and sentenced appellants for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
The appellants are ordered to be released forthwith, if they are in custody and their presence is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Judgement Key Points
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
- 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
-
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 (!) .
-
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 (!) (!) (!) .
-
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 (!) .
-
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
- 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.
-
Costs of this appeal may also be awarded in favor of the appellant(s).
-
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]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, identify eye-witness reliability, or establish motive, while the State defends the reliance on circumstantial and discovery evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s plausible acquittal by failing to properly evaluate witness credibility, weak circumstantial chain, and contradictory medical evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 30 )
4. An appellate court must not reverse an acquittal merely because a different view is possible; interference is justified only when the trial court's view is patently perverse. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
5. The High Court judgment is set aside and the trial court order of acquittal is restored; appellants ordered to be released if in custody. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
6. What is the scope of appellate interference in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
An appellate court may only reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s view is patently perverse, based on misreading evidence, or clearly unreasonable, rather than merely preferring an alternative plausible interpretation. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
7. Does an uncorroborated, delayed statement from a witness satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal conviction?
No, a significantly delayed statement from a sole eye-witness whose presence is doubted, when contradictive of medical evidence and failing to establish a chain of circumstances, indicates a planted witness and is insufficient for conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
8. Can a conviction for criminal conspiracy be sustained based solely on suspected motive and association?
No, criminal conspiracy requires proof of a meeting of minds, prior agreement, and concerted action. Mere suspicion based on civil disputes or association cannot substitute for evidentiary proof. (Para 7 , 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
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 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.
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.
(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, 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 J
