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

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