Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala 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