Karnataka HC Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Missing Links in Circumstantial Evidence; Benefit of Doubt Extended Where Chain of Events Shows Significant Gaps [Read Judgment]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has acquitted an accused convicted of murder, cruelty, and causing disappearance of evidence, holding that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, missing links in the chain of events that give rise to alternative hypotheses mandate acquittal, and that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. delivered the judgment while allowing a criminal appeal filed by Arun Kumar M., who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural.

The appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from the discovery of an unidentified female body on December 30, 2014, in agricultural land, bearing visible crushed injuries on the face and head, with skin peeled from the scalp to the chest, and with the left foot and right hand missing. Due to severe disfigurement, the body was not immediately identifiable.

During the investigation, the accused was arrested and allegedly gave a voluntary statement. According to the prosecution, the accused had married the victim, Ramya, in November 2013 but later developed an illicit relationship with another woman. The victim allegedly posted derogatory statements about this woman on Facebook, leading the accused and others to hatch a conspiracy to eliminate her. On December 29, 2014, the accused allegedly called the victim to Kappa Coffee Day, took her in an autorickshaw to the crime scene, and, with the help of co-accused, murdered her by stabbing her neck with knives, after which they allegedly peeled her skin and amputated body parts to prevent identification.

The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, holding that the prosecution had established: (1) the accused and victim were last seen together, (2) the death was homicidal, (3) there was a strong motive, and (4) witnesses supported the prosecution case.

The appellant contended that there were no direct witnesses and that the circumstantial evidence was not established by cogent and consistent proof. He argued that the trial court wrongly framed an additional charge under Section 498A IPC despite the victim not residing with him from February 2014 until her death, and that key witnesses either turned hostile or were not examined. He further challenged the last-seen theory, pointing to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the unexplained three-month delay in recording statements of material witnesses.

The High Court examined each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution:

On Homicidal Death:
The Court held this to be proved through medical evidence showing cut-throat injuries, extensive skin peeling, and amputation of limbs. The post-mortem report established that death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from homicidal cut-throat injuries.

On Motive:
The Court noted that both sides alleged animosity against each other. While the prosecution claimed the accused developed an extramarital relationship to which the victim objected, the defence contended that the victim’s family harassed the accused by filing false complaints. The Court observed that motive is a double-edged weapon and merely corroborative in nature, and that conviction cannot rest solely on motive unless other incriminating circumstances are proved.

On the Last-Seen Circumstance:
This was identified as the most crucial issue. The prosecution relied on witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused and the victim together at Kappa Coffee Day on December 29, 2014. However, the Court found serious infirmities:

• One witness (PW3) admitted to giving his statement three months after the incident and stated that another person was also present in the autorickshaw.
• Another witness (PW7) gave contradictory versions regarding his visit to the victim’s house and admitted that he learned about the accused through others.
• A key witness (PW8) was recalled but never cross-examined, requiring his evidence to be eschewed.
• Another witness (PW9), a stranger, identified the accused at the police station without any test identification parade.
• The witnesses gave contradictory timings—3:30 PM, between 2:30–3:00 PM, and 5:00 PM.
• Several other alleged last-seen witnesses turned hostile.

The Court held that the trial court erred in relying on such inconsistent testimonies to establish the last-seen theory.

On Recovery of Evidence:
The Court observed that although the investigating officer claimed recovery of a blood-stained knife and other articles pursuant to the accused’s voluntary statement, independent panchanama witnesses were not examined, and the witness who was examined turned hostile. This created serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery.

On Identity of the Dead Body:
The Court found a critical gap, noting that due to extensive disfigurement, facial identification was impossible. The body was identified only by the victim’s mother (PW2) on the basis of a tattoo on the left arm, without corroboration such as clothing description or DNA examination. The Court held that PW2’s testimony alone was insufficient to conclusively establish identity.

On Section 106 of the Evidence Act:
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that the burden shifted to the accused, the Court held that Section 106 can be invoked only after the prosecution discharges its initial burden by establishing foundational facts. As the incident occurred in an isolated place not owned by the accused and the body was not recovered at his instance, no presumption could be drawn under Section 106.

The Court reiterated that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, all incriminating circumstances must be proved by reliable and clinching evidence, forming a complete chain that excludes every other hypothesis except guilt. Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof.

On the last-seen theory specifically, the Court held that it applies only where the time gap between the accused and victim being last seen together and the discovery of the body is so narrow as to exclude the possibility of involvement of any other person, and even then requires corroboration.

The Court also noted troubling aspects of the investigation, including that a missing/kidnapping complaint was lodged instead of a murder complaint, the alleged confession to the investigating officer lacked independent corroboration, and statements of key witnesses were recorded after an unexplained delay of three months, casting serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation.

While medical evidence proved that a homicide had occurred, the prosecution failed to connect the accused to the crime. The chain of circumstances contained significant gaps and deficiencies, giving rise to alternative hypotheses. Where even an iota of doubt exists, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 201, and 498A IPC, and directed his immediate release. The Court also directed the District Legal Services Authority to determine and pay compensation to the victim’s mother under Section 357A CrPC and preserved the case papers for proceedings against another accused who remains absconding.

Case Title: Arun Kumar M. v. State by Bagaluru P.S.

[Read Judgment]