Acquittal Granted Due to Lack of Evidence, Following Previous Acquittals of Co-Accused
In a significant judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court on February 24, 2026, Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, J., quashed the proceedings against Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy, the accused No.14, in the case S.C.No.1529/2021. This decision comes in the wake of the acquittal of the other co-accused due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The petitioner was implicated in a high-profile case involving charges of unlawful assembly, murder, and conspiracy, among others, under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120B, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The case stemmed from the alleged involvement in a conspiracy and murder of individuals linked to past criminal activities.
The court proceedings revealed that the prosecution's case was built primarily on circumstantial evidence. However, during the trial, the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's narrative, and the chain of evidence required to establish guilt was found to be incomplete. Notably, previous judgments such as those in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which highlight the rigorous standards for proving guilt based on circumstantial evidence, were pivotal in assessing the evidence.
The Sessions Court had earlier acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 13 due to similar evidentiary shortcomings. The Karnataka High Court observed that continuing proceedings against the petitioner would likely result in an acquittal, thereby conserving judicial resources.
Advocate Smt. Deepa V. Shetty, representing the petitioner, argued for parity in treatment with the co-accused, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence against her client. The High Court acknowledged the merits of this argument, leading to the decision to quash the proceedings against accused No.14.
The court's order instructed the quashing of the pending proceedings in S.C.No.1529/2021 and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from judicial custody, marking a significant development in this long-standing legal battle.
Bottom Line:
Accused No.14 entitled to benefit of acquittal and quashment of proceedings due to failure of prosecution in driving home guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as other co-accused have already been acquitted for lack of evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120B, 427 read with Section 149
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 3(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 10
Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858609
