MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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