Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News