Chance Witness Not Sufficient To Reverse Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Decision in Brutal Murder Case

“Even in Brutal Crimes, Conviction Must Rest on Reliable, Trustworthy and Legally Admissible Evidence” –  In a judgment High Court of Karnataka dismissed criminal appeals filed by both the victim’s wife and the State challenging the acquittal of four accused in the alleged premeditated murder of Jayaram. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and held that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal did not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference.

The Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T refused to interfere with the trial court’s judgment dated 13.06.2025 in S.C. No. 1169/2017, which had acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of charges under Sections 302, 120B, 450 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from a conspiracy allegedly hatched by the deceased’s nephew to avenge the murder of his mother.

"Sole Alleged Eyewitness Turned Out to Be a Chance Witness; His Testimony Unreliable and Contradicted by Other Witnesses"

Central to the prosecution’s case was P.W.4, who claimed to be an eyewitness and allegedly saw the accused, including his landlord’s nephew Rajesh (A1), fleeing the scene with deadly weapons. However, on cross-examination, it was revealed that P.W.4 had not even been present at the spot at the relevant time. Instead, as corroborated by his wife (P.W.3) and police witnesses (P.W.15 and P.W.16), P.W.4 was at Hennur Bus Stop until late evening and only returned after the incident had already occurred.

The Court remarked: “The evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicates he was not present at the spot when the incident occurred. His testimony, being inconsistent and contradicted by other reliable witnesses, cannot be treated as the eyewitness account.”

The Bench further held that P.W.4 was a chance witness, and his identification of the accused lacked credibility as it was not supported by any immediate statement to the police or independent corroboration.

Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act – ‘Res Gestae’ Not Attracted Without Proximity or Certainty

The appellants sought to rely on Ex.P1, the earliest written complaint by the deceased’s wife (P.W.1), and invoked Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, claiming that it formed part of the same transaction. However, the Court rejected this argument:

“Section 6 requires statements to be so connected with the transaction in question as to form part of the same. Here, the source of P.W.1’s knowledge was not direct but derived from others; there is no proximity or spontaneity in the information.”

The Bench reiterated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 (wife and daughter) were not eyewitnesses and their testimony was largely hearsay. Their identification of the accused was not based on any direct witnessing of the incident.

Medical Evidence Establishes Brutality, But Not Involvement of Accused

While the post-mortem report (Ex.P.26) by P.W.20 confirmed that the deceased suffered 20 grievous injuries, including multiple chop and stab wounds, the Court emphasized that medical evidence is corroborative and cannot substitute for reliable evidence linking the accused.

The Court observed: “The fact that the deceased suffered multiple brutal injuries is not in dispute. But brutality of the act cannot replace the burden on prosecution to prove the identity of the assailants through credible evidence.”

Recovery of Weapons Fails Under Section 27 Evidence – Panch Witnesses Turned Hostile

The prosecution claimed recovery of weapons (M.O.2 and M.O.3 – chopper and sickle) and the vehicle used in the offence, based on the accused’s voluntary statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the panch witnesses (P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.14) turned hostile and did not support the recovery mahazars.

The High Court noted: “The alleged recovery of weapons cannot be accepted merely because of the accused’s signature on the mahazar. The contents of the mahazar must be supported by independent witnesses, which is absent in this case.”

The Court further held that even the FSL report (Ex.P.38), which revealed that human blood of group ‘O’ was found on the seized items, was of no consequence in absence of legally admissible proof of seizure.

Scope of Interference with Acquittal Limited – Two Views Possible

Upholding the acquittal, the High Court reiterated the principles governing appellate interference:

“When two views are possible based on the evidence, the view taken by the trial court must be respected unless it is perverse or unsupported by the record. The presumption of innocence gets reinforced post-acquittal.”

In this case, the trial court had meticulously analyzed the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found the link between the accused and the crime unproven. The High Court affirmed this assessment.

Conviction Must Rest on Legally Reliable Evidence, Not Suspicion

Dismissing both the victim’s appeal (Crl.A. No. 1620/2025) and the State’s appeal (Crl.A. No. 1905/2025), the High Court observed that:

“There is no reliable eyewitness. The so-called sole eyewitness P.W.4 is a chance witness whose testimony is untrustworthy and contradicted. Recovery is not proved. No circumstantial chain is established to link the accused to the crime. The acquittal cannot be reversed on such weak foundation.”

The Court refused to convict the accused solely on the basis of motive or the brutal nature of the crime, absent cogent evidence.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026