The Karnataka High Court set aside a life sentence in a sensational murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court ruled that serious gaps, contradictions, and lack of scientific proof entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has acquitted a Bengaluru man who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife, affair, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the conviction was based only on suspicion and incomplete circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient in criminal law.
A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T overturned the March 2024 judgment of the Sessions Court, which had convicted Arun Kumar under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court observed that the prosecution could not establish a clear and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime.
The case relates to the death of Ramya, who married Arun Kumar in November 2013. On 30 December 2014, a land cultivator found the severely mutilated body of an unidentified woman on his agricultural land at Kadusonnappanahalli near Bengaluru. The body had deep cut-throat injuries, missing limbs, and skin peeled from the scalp to the chest, making identification extremely difficult.
According to the prosecution, Arun Kumar and Ramya were in a relationship before marriage and had frequent disputes. It was alleged that Ramya became pregnant before marriage, and Arun initially refused to marry her but later agreed after police intervention. The prosecution claimed that marital discord continued after marriage, with Arun suspecting Ramya’s character and sending her back to her parental home within months.
The prosecution further alleged that Arun developed a relationship with another woman and wanted to end his marriage with Ramya. During this period, Ramya allegedly posted derogatory and defamatory messages on Facebook, claiming that the other woman was “available to all,” and shared her mobile number publicly. It was alleged that these posts caused humiliation and anger, leading to animosity and an alleged conspiracy to eliminate Ramya.
Police claimed that on 29 December 2014, Arun called Ramya to Kappa Coffee Day at Kasturi Nagar, took her in an autorickshaw to a secluded place, where she was murdered using knives, and her body was later mutilated to destroy evidence and prevent identification. Based on motive, last-seen theory, alleged recoveries, and medical evidence, the trial court convicted Arun Kumar, even though several co-accused were acquitted, two died during trial, and one remained absconding.
While allowing the appeal, the High Court agreed that the medical evidence clearly showed that the death was homicidal. However, it held that this alone was not enough to convict the accused. The Court found serious contradictions in the prosecution’s “last seen together” theory.
Witnesses gave conflicting timelines, their statements were recorded months after the incident without explanation, some witnesses turned hostile, and one key witness was not made available for cross-examination.
The Court also expressed serious doubts about the recovery of incriminating articles, including the alleged murder weapon. Independent panch witnesses were not properly examined, and one key seizure witness turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case on recoveries.
On the issue of identification, the Court noted that except for the mother of the deceased identifying a tattoo mark, there was no scientific or corroborative evidence to conclusively establish the identity of the body. Despite extreme disfigurement, no DNA test was conducted, which created a major gap in the prosecution story.
The Bench rejected the prosecution’s attempt to rely on Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden onto the accused. It held that unless the prosecution first proves foundational facts connecting the accused to the crime, the burden cannot be shifted.
“In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,”
-the Court observed, emphasising that missing links in the chain of circumstances must go in favour of the accused.
“…a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be difficult to connect accused No.1 to the crime. The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency creating significant gap, leading to other possible hypothesis as aforementioned. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt mus be extended to accused No.1,”
Accordingly, the High Court acquitted Arun Kumar of all charges, ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case, and directed refund of any fine paid. The Court also referred the matter to the District Legal Services Authority for consideration of compensation to the victim’s mother under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | What It Means (Simple Indian English) | How Court Viewed It in This Case |
| Section 302 IPC | Punishment for murder | Homicidal death proved, but link to accused not proved beyond doubt |
| Section 201 IPC | Causing disappearance of evidence | Recovery and evidence not proved reliably |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | No specific, reliable proof of cruelty soon before death |
| Section 120B IPC | Criminal conspiracy | Alleged conspiracy not proved by solid evidence |
| Section 109 IPC | Abetment | Failed due to lack of proof of main offence |
| Section 34 IPC | Common intention | Could not be invoked without proving participation |
| Section 149 IPC | Unlawful assembly | Not sustained as co-accused were acquitted / unavailable |
| Section 106 Evidence Act | Burden of proving facts especially within accused’s knowledge | Cannot be applied without prosecution proving foundational facts |
| Section 313 CrPC | Statement of accused | Mere denial cannot be used to fill prosecution gaps |
| Section 374(2) CrPC | Appeal against conviction | Used by accused to challenge trial court judgment |
| Section 357A CrPC | Victim compensation | Court referred matter for compensation to victim’s mother |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Arun Kumar M. v. State by Bagaluru Police
- Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1270 of 2024
- Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC:54041-DB
- Date of Judgment: 18 December 2025
- Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Mudagal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
- Counsels
- For Appellant (Accused): Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, Advocate
- For Respondent (State): Smt. Sowmya R., High Court Government Pleader
Key Takeaways
- Suspicion Is Not Evidence: Courts reaffirmed that emotional allegations and moral judgments cannot replace strict legal proof, even in sensational cases.
- Circumstantial Evidence Has a High Threshold: If even one link in the chain breaks, the accused must get the benefit of doubt—this protects innocent men from wrongful convictions.
- Last-Seen Theory Is Often Misused: Delayed, contradictory, and untested witness statements cannot be used to jail a husband for life.
- No DNA, No Scientific Proof, No Conviction: When identity itself is doubtful and no DNA test is done, the case collapses—investigative lapses cannot be blamed on the accused.
- Section 498A and Section 106 Cannot Be Shortcuts to Conviction: Burden cannot be shifted to the husband unless the prosecution first proves foundational facts—law does not presume guilt just because the accused is a man.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.