Legal Review and Analysis of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Ors 2026 INSC 67
Synopsis
This judgment addresses the fundamental principles governing appellate interference with an order of acquittal in a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction ordered by the High Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellants for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC). The core of the judgment reaffirms the sanctity of the presumption of innocence, the high threshold for reversing an acquittal, and the stringent standards of proof required in cases hinging on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a solitary, unreliable witness.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Coram: Vipul M. Pancholi, J. (Presiding Judge) – (Note: The judgment does not specify a second judge; it is likely a Division Bench judgment, but the coram is listed only as "VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J." in the provided text.)
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.
Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024.
Date of Judgment: January 16, 2026.
2. Legal Framework
The judgment interprets and applies the following key legal provisions and doctrines:
Substantive Law: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34: These were the charges framed against the appellants for murder, criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence, criminal intimidation, and acts done in furtherance of a common intention.Procedural & Evidentiary Law:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The framework for trial (Section 313 statements), appeal (Section 378), and recording of evidence (Sections 161 & 164).
Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Section 27: Governs the admissibility of information received from an accused in custody leading to the discovery of a fact.
General Principles: The standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," the nature of circumstantial evidence, and the credibility of witness testimony.Key Precedents on Appellate Review of Acquittals (The cornerstone of the judgment):
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (cited para 27): Summarized principles from Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka.
Ramesh v. State of Uttarakhand (cited para 28): Reiterated that an appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another plausible view exists.
H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (cited para 40): Outlined a concise five-point test for interference.
Kalyan v. State of U.P., Basappa v. State of Karnataka, Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, Kallu v. State of M.P., Ganpat v. State of Haryana: These cases collectively establish that an acquittal can be overturned only for "compelling and substantial reasons" and if the trial court's view is "perverse" or "not a possible view."
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The factual matrix is crucial to understanding the evidentiary gaps:
The Incident: Martandgouda (deceased) went missing on December 11, 2011. A missing complaint was lodged by his son (PW-1) on December 16, 2011.
Suspicion & Arrests: On January 3, 2012, the complainant gave a further statement suspecting his uncle, Veerupakshagouda (A1), and others due to civil land disputes. Based on this, Accused 2-4 were arrested on January 4, 2012. Their alleged disclosure statements led to the recovery of a body from a canal.
The Prosecution's Theory: The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy among six accused, motivated by land disputes and personal grievances, to abduct and murder the deceased.
Trial Court Verdict (2019): After examining 22 witnesses, the Trial Court acquitted all accused. It held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. Motive was found weak, the sole eyewitness (PW-5) unreliable, and recovery procedures dubious.
High Court Verdict (2023): The High Court allowed the state's appeal, convicted A1 to A4 (A4 had died, A5 & A6 were acquitted), and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It relied heavily on the testimony of PW-5 and the disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Supreme Court Appeal: Convicted accused (A1, A2, A3) appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Framed by the Court
The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC?
This issue subsumed within it the evaluation of:
a. The reliability of the sole eyewitness (PW-5).
b. The strength of the circumstantial evidence chain (motive, last seen, recovery).
c. The admissibility and weight of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
d. The correct application of legal principles governing appellate interference with an acquittal.
4. Ratio Decidendi and Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the acquittal, based on the following decisive reasoning:
Unreliable Sole Eyewitness (PW-5): The Court found PW-5 to be utterly unreliable, labeling him a "planted witness." Critical flaws noted were:
His statement was recorded 21 days after the incident, only after the accused were arrested and the body recovered.
He gave contradictory versions in his police statement (u/s 161 CrPC) and his statement before the magistrate (u/s 164 CrPC).
He was declared hostile in part, did not know the accused personally, and had criminal antecedents.
His conduct of not raising an alarm during the alleged murder and disposal of the body was inexplicable and unnatural.Incomplete and Unproven Circumstantial Chain: The Court held the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances.
Motive: The alleged land dispute was civil in nature. PW-1 admitted no prior criminal threats existed. The alleged motive for other accused (illicit relationships) was speculative and not proved.
Last Seen & Conspiracy: No evidence placed A1 with the deceased. The theory of conspiracy was rejected by the High Court itself for A5 & A6, and the Court found it equally unsubstantiated for A1-A4.
Recovery & Medical Evidence: The discovery of the body was vitiated as the independent witnesses (CW-22 & CW-23) who retrieved it were not examined. The medical evidence (PW-14) created a doubt, stating death occurred about 10 days prior, while the prosecution alleged murder 21 days before the post-mortem.Misapplication of Section 27, Evidence Act: The Court held that the so-called confessional disclosures leading to recovery could not form the sole basis for conviction, especially when the primary fact of recovery itself was not proved by examining material witnesses.
Erroneous Interference by High Court: This is the most significant legal holding. The Supreme Court extensively quoted precedents to reiterate the law:
An acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence.
An appellate court has the power to review evidence but must not interfere if the trial court's view is a "possible" or "plausible" view.
Interference is warranted only in cases of "perversity," "compelling and substantial reasons," or where the only possible conclusion is guilt.
The High Court erred by substituting its own view for that of the Trial Court merely because another view (that of conviction) was possible. The Trial Court's view based on the evidence was held to be a perfectly reasonable and possible one.
6. Legal Principles Reaffirmed and Clarified
This judgment does not establish new law but powerfully reinforces settled constitutional and evidentiary principles:
Sanctity of Acquittal & Presumption of Innocence: It underscores that an acquittal is not a mere opinion but a legal entitlement reinforced by the trial court's judgment. Appellate interference must be an exception, not the rule.
Standard for Reversal of Acquittal: It provides a clear, consolidated test: Intervention is only permissible if the acquittal is (i) perverse, (ii) based on a misreading of evidence, or (iii) the only possible conclusion from the evidence is guilt. The "other possible view" ground is explicitly rejected as insufficient.
Scrutiny of Solitary Witness Testimony: It reiterates that conviction on the sole testimony of a witness is permissible only if such a witness is "sterling" and wholly reliable. Witnesses with material contradictions, delays, and unnatural conduct cannot form the basis for conviction.
Burden in Circumstantial Evidence Cases: The judgment implicitly reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be so complete as to rule out any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
7. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
The judgment is a classic restatement of restraint in appellate jurisprudence. It corrects the High Court's error of re-weighing evidence de novo and substituting its own findings of fact for those of the trial judge, who had the benefit of observing witnesses. The Supreme Court's detailed dismantling of the prosecution's case—highlighting the tainted eyewitness, the speculative motive, and the flawed recovery—serves as a textbook example of applying the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
The strength of the judgment lies in its doctrinal clarity, seamlessly weaving together multiple precedents to create a formidable barrier against casual overturning of acquittals. It protects individuals from the state's power by insisting on the highest standards of procedural and evidentiary integrity.
Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by the convicted accused.
The impugned judgment of the High Court dated November 28, 2023, was set aside.
The order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court dated March 30, 2019, was restored.
The appellants were ordered to be released from custody immediately.
(MCQs)
1. According to the Supreme Court in this judgment, when can an Appellate Court rightfully interfere with and reverse an order of acquittal?
a) When it finds that a different view from the trial court is possible on the same evidence.
b) Only when the acquittal is based on a possible view of the evidence.
c) When the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, or no other reasonable conclusion except guilt is possible from the evidence.
d) Whenever the Appellate Court, on a fresh appreciation, feels convinced of the guilt of the accused.
2. The Supreme Court found the sole eyewitness, PW-5, to be unreliable for all of the following reasons EXCEPT?
a) His statement was recorded after a delay of 21 days from the incident.
b) He was a close relative of the deceased and therefore emotionally compromised.
c) He gave contradictory statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
d) He had criminal antecedents and did not know the accused personally.
3. Which legal principle regarding the presumption of innocence did the Court emphasize in the context of an appeal against acquittal?
a) The presumption of innocence is weakened after a trial court's acquittal.
b) An acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
c) The presumption of innocence only applies at the trial stage, not in appeal.
d) The presumption is rebutted once the High Court finds sufficient evidence for conviction.
4. Regarding the evidence related to the discovery of the dead body (Section 27, Evidence Act), why did the Supreme Court find it insufficient?
a) Because disclosure statements are never admissible against co-accused.
b) Because the fact discovered (the body) was already known to the police.
c) Because the independent witnesses who physically retrieved the body were not examined by the prosecution.
d) Because the disclosure was not made voluntarily.