Conviction overturned as court finds circumstantial evidence and last seen theory inadequate to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
In a landmark judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, the conviction of Arun Kumar M. in the sensational 2014 murder case has been overturned. The Division Bench comprising Mrs. K.S. Mudagal and Mr. Venkatesh Naik T. ruled in favor of Arun Kumar, citing a lack of conclusive evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 1270 of 2024, which challenged the verdict of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural.
Arun Kumar M., who was accused of murdering his wife Ramya, was previously convicted by the trial court under Sections 302, 201, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution's case hinged on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of weapons, and alleged motive due to Arun Kumar's illicit relationship. However, the High Court found these elements insufficient to maintain the conviction.
The judgment underscored the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof in criminal cases. It emphasized the need for an unbroken chain of events to conclusively link the accused to the crime, which the prosecution failed to establish. The court observed inconsistencies in witness testimonies and highlighted the lack of direct evidence connecting Arun Kumar to the murder.
The last seen theory, a pivotal part of the prosecution's case, was deemed unreliable due to the significant time gap between when Arun Kumar and Ramya were last seen together and when her body was discovered. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence and discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the timeline.
Further, the High Court criticized the inadequacy of forensic evidence, noting the prosecution's failure to conclusively identify Ramya's body through DNA or other reliable methods. The recovery of incriminating articles, including knives allegedly used in the murder, was also found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of independent witness corroboration.
In light of these findings, the court granted Arun Kumar the benefit of doubt, setting aside his conviction and ordering his immediate release unless required in connection with any other case. The judgment also directed the District Legal Services Authority to determine and pay compensation to Ramya's mother under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The acquittal marks a significant turn in the high-profile case, which had captivated public attention due to its gruesome nature and alleged conspiracy involving multiple accused. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence.
Bottom Line:
Circumstantial Evidence - Last seen theory - Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof of guilt in criminal cases - Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 498A; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357A
Arun Kumar M. v. State By Bagaluru P.S., (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824020
