Appellate Court Cannot Substitue Its Own View Unless Trial Court’s Acquittal Is Perverse: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In Murder Conspiracy Case

“If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court” – Supreme Court reiterates settled principle in criminal jurisprudence

In a significant reaffirmation of established criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on 16th January 2026, restored the acquittal of three individuals in a case of alleged murder and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that appellate courts must exercise great restraint while reversing acquittals rendered by trial courts. The judgment was delivered in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Another v. State of Karnataka, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120–2121 and 2542–2543 of 2024, arising from a conviction order passed by the Karnataka High Court in a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence and a discredited sole eye-witness.

“The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances and the view taken by the trial court was plausible” – Supreme Court

Allowing the appeals filed by the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the bench of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 28.11.2023, which had reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal dated 30.03.2019 and convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court concluded that the entire case rested on weak circumstantial evidence, an unreliable witness (PW-5), and unproven discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, none of which could sustain the conviction.

A Murder Cloaked in Suspicion and Speculation

The case stemmed from a missing person complaint filed on 16.12.2011 by the son of one Martandgouda, a resident of Hulkoti, Karnataka. The deceased had allegedly gone missing on 11.12.2011, and suspicion eventually fell upon his relatives and former associates due to prior land disputes, civil litigation, and alleged strained relationships.

The prosecution claimed that the accused—motivated by enmity arising from land ownership issues, prior injunctions, and allegations of illicit relations—had conspired to abduct and murder Martandgouda. A dead body, purportedly that of the deceased, was recovered from a canal weeks later, allegedly at the instance of the accused.

A chargesheet was filed against six accused under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 364, 302, 201, and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, leading to trial.

Trial Court Acquits All: Finds Gaps In Motive, Conspiracy, And Chain Of Circumstances

By judgment dated 30.03.2019, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, acquitted all six accused, noting that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to guilt.

The Court found the alleged motive speculative, conspiracy unproven, and the "last seen" theory, recovery, and medical evidence inconclusive. The only person claiming to have witnessed the alleged abduction and events leading to the murder—PW-5, a tempo driver—was held to be unreliable due to contradictory statements, unexplained 21-day silence, and admitted criminal antecedents.

“Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof,” the Trial Court had ruled while granting the benefit of doubt.

High Court Reverses Acquittal On Circumstantial Evidence, Supreme Court Disagrees

The Karnataka High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 120-B, among other punishments. It confirmed acquittal of Accused Nos. 5 and 6, doubting their involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

Challenging this reversal, the appellants argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had improperly re-evaluated the evidence without finding the Trial Court’s view to be perverse or unsustainable in law.

Appellate Caution And Presumption Of Innocence Reinforced

The Supreme Court, while meticulously examining the scope of appellate interference under Section 378 CrPC, held that the Trial Court's judgment was based on a possible and plausible view of the evidence, and did not suffer from perversity or omission of material facts.

Reiterating the principles laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Court emphasized:

“If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

It further noted the double presumption in favour of an accused acquitted by the Trial Court and reiterated:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.”

Citing decisions including Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471, Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 20 SCC 522, and Basappa v. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 154, the bench concluded that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own view without identifying any glaring error in the Trial Court’s judgment.

Unreliable Sole Witness: PW-5’s Credibility Dismantled

A critical pillar of the prosecution was PW-5, the driver who allegedly witnessed the abduction and killing. However, the Supreme Court, after examining his statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, found material discrepancies, delayed disclosure, and lack of identification of all accused, rendering his testimony inherently unreliable.

“PW-5 can be said to be a planted witness,” the Court observed, noting that he neither informed the police nor raised any alarm when the incident occurred and failed to identify accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 personally.

The Court also noted that his Section 164 statement was not read over to him, and he had criminal antecedents, further weakening his credibility.

Medical Evidence Casts Doubt On Prosecution Timeline

The Court found that the post-mortem conducted by PW-14 contradicted the prosecution’s timeline. While the prosecution claimed the murder occurred on 11.12.2011, the medical expert opined that the death occurred 10 days prior to autopsy, which was conducted on 04.01.2012.

“Medical evidence also does not fully support the case of the prosecution and raises doubt,” the Court observed.

Confession And Recovery Not Duly Proved: Section 27 Evidence Falls Short

The prosecution had also relied upon disclosure statements of accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allegedly led to recovery of the body. However, the Supreme Court found that key witnesses to recovery (CW-22 and CW-23) were never examined, and thus the discovery remained uncorroborated.

“Simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the accused and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded.”

Conspiracy Allegation Found Unproven

While the prosecution constructed a theory of criminal conspiracy around land disputes, alleged grudge, and illicit relationships, the Court held that none of the essential ingredients of conspiracy—meeting of minds, prior agreement, or concerted action—had been established.

Interestingly, the High Court itself acquitted accused Nos. 5 and 6, indicating a lack of collective conspiracy, thereby undermining the prosecution’s core case.

“The prosecution has failed to prove the aspect of conspiracy by leading cogent evidence,” the Court concluded.

Trial Court’s View Was Plausible, High Court Overstepped

In unequivocal terms, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, and its view was a plausible and legally sustainable one. The High Court, in overturning the acquittal, failed to demonstrate perversity, misreading of evidence, or compelling reasons.

“We are of the view that conviction of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be sustained,” the Court held, ordering the immediate release of appellants, unless required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026