Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal appeals filed by five accused persons, acquitting them of charges under Section 120B of IPC for conspiracy and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for murder. The trial court had convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 under Section 120B and accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34, sentencing the latter to life imprisonment. The prosecution case involved a love affair between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7, who was married to the deceased, leading to a conspiracy to murder him with hired assailants. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found it insufficient to prove conspiracy or murder beyond reasonable doubt, noting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, heard criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by accused persons challenging their conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2018 in S.C.No.68/2015 -- The appellants were convicted by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara -- Accused Nos. 1, 6, and 7 were convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for criminal conspiracy -- Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for murder with common intention and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines -- The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 conspired with accused No. 7 to eliminate the deceased, hiring accused Nos. 2 to 5 for a supari amount -- The High Court found inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, lack of independent witness corroboration for recoveries, and failure to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt -- The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, leading to acquittal of all appellants -- The appeals were allowed, setting aside the trial court judgment
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the prosecution proved the charges of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC and murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2018, and acquitted all appellants of the charges
2026 LawText (KAR) (02) 26
Criminal Appeal No.1254/2018, Criminal Appeal No.988/2018, Criminal Appeal No.1114/2018, Criminal Appeal No.1153/2018, Criminal Appeal No.1154/2018
H.P. Sandesh J. , Venkatesh Naik T J.
Sri. K.S. Naresh Santhosh, Sri. P.P. Hegde, Ms. Sameeksha T.R., Sri. Abhiram Kumar P., Dr. S. Nagaraj, Smt. Rashmi Patel
Smt. Sukanya, Sri. Maniraj @ Mani, Sri. Bharathkumar, Abdul Razaq @ Razaq, Vasu Sajju @ Sajju
State by Ramanagara Rural Police, Ramanagara District
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for offences under IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2018
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged their conviction under Section 120B of IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging lack of evidence
Previous Decisions
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, 7 under Section 120B IPC and accused Nos. 2, 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing latter to life imprisonment; accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the prosecution established common intention under Section 34 of IPC for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34
Submissions/Arguments
The prosecution evidence was inconsistent and lacked corroboration
Recovery of weapons was not supported by independent witnesses
Conspiracy was not proved with cogent evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC and murder with common intention under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient and inconsistent evidence
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that accused No.1-Bharathkumar was in love with accused No.7- Sukanya, who married the deceased-Ganesh
They have received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from accused No.1 as advance
Accused No.2 – Vasu @ Sajju held the said Ganesh tightly and cut his throat by a knife; accused No.3 - Abdul Razak stabbed the Ganesh on his stomach by knife
Procedural History
Case registered based on complaint by PW1 after discovery of deceased's body -- Investigation led to arrest of accused and recovery of weapons -- Trial in S.C.No.68/2015 resulted in conviction of some accused and acquittal of others -- Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. -- High Court heard appeals and reserved judgment on 18.02.2026 -- Judgment pronounced on 27.02.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
