US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
R. NATARAJ, RAJESH RAI K.
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Mallikarjun S/o Somawwa Harijan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K., J.
1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.42/2016 dated 21.06.2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Sessions Judge’) acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 120B, 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that, respondent No.1 i.e., accused No.1 took the deceased (Kariyappa) on his motorcycle on 25.11.2015 at 06:30 pm from Budihal village for a drink. Thereafter, the deceased did not return and his phone was not reachable. Therefore, the complainant-PW.2-brother of the deceased, visited the house of accused No.1 to enquire about his brother. However, the family
The prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.
In criminal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, especially where direct evidence is absent, reinforcing a presumptio....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to establish a clear circumstantial chain of evidence, reinforcing the principle that acquittal enhances the presumption of innoce....
In criminal jurisprudence, an accused cannot be convicted unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in evidence favor acquittal.
The court reinforced that in criminal appeals, the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
The conviction under Section 302 of IPC was upheld due to circumstantial evidence demonstrating motive and opportunity, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article