Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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