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

Presumption of Innocence Reinforced by Acquittal - Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal in Robbery Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, on November 28, upheld the acquittal of two individuals accused in a high-profile robbery case. The bench, comprising The Hon'ble Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil B Katti, dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal verdict initially delivered by the trial court.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2017 (A), revolved around allegations of carjacking and theft of cash, a gold chain, and a mobile phone. The trial court had earlier acquitted the accused, citing a lack of substantial evidence to prove their involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

In its decision, the High Court emphasized the principle of the presumption of innocence, especially in cases of acquittal. Quoting a key observation, the Court stated, "Presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of acquittal." This principle formed a critical aspect of their judgment, aligning with the established jurisprudence that favors the accused in scenarios of acquittal.

The prosecution's appeal challenged the trial court's judgment, asserting errors in evaluating the evidence and the identification process of the accused. However, the High Court, after careful examination, found no substantial reason to interfere with the trial court's decision. The discrepancies in the recovery of stolen items and the identification of the accused played a significant role in shaping the Court's verdict.

The case was further notable for its reference to several landmark Supreme Court judgments, underscoring the appellate court's role in cases of acquittal and the reinforced presumption of innocence.

Date of Decision: 28 November 2023

STATE OF KARNATAKA  VS  VENUGOPAL @ VENU and Others

Latest Legal News