Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

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