Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

High Court Upholds Principle of Double Presumption in Favour of the Accused: Reaffirms Innocence in Karnataka Robbery Acquittal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru today dismissed an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondents in a high-profile robbery case (CRL.A No.565 OF 2017 (A)). The bench, comprising The Hon’ble Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil B. Katti, reiterated the legal axiom that “there is a double presumption in favour of the accused.”

This landmark judgment stems from an incident on the night of November 4-5, 2010, involving the hijacking of the complainant’s car and theft of valuables. The respondents were previously acquitted by the trial court, prompting the State to challenge the decision.

In their comprehensive review, the High Court delved into the nuances of the identification process of the accused and the recovery of stolen items. The judges highlighted significant procedural lapses, particularly the absence of a test identification parade, which cast doubts on the reliability of the identification of the accused.

The Court observed, “An appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.” This statement not only served as a headline-grabbing quote but also as a critical legal principle guiding their judgment. It emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court’s acquittal.

The decision also shed light on the standards for appellate review of an acquittal, suggesting restraint and caution in overturning trial court decisions when multiple reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. The High Court’s upholding of the trial court’s acquittal is seen as a testament to the robustness of the judicial process in safeguarding individual rights against unwarranted state prosecution.

Date of Decision: 28 November 2023

STATE OF KARNATAKA VS VENUGOPAL @ VENU

Latest Legal News