Mallikarjun and Others v. State of Karnataka

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 880Decided 8 Aug 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1066 of 2009
Justice R. Banumathi · Justice A.S. Bopanna

Background

A father, two sons, and a third accused were alleged to have killed a young man who was believed to be having an affair with the wife of one of the accused (the father). The deceased's mother and brother witnessed the attack, which involved multiple accused stabbing and assaulting the victim with daggers and an axe handle. The trial court convicted all four accused of murder and house-trespass, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction; three of them (one of the four accused was absconding) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the deceased's mother and brother, corroborated by medical evidence showing matching injuries, reliably proved the overt acts of the first two accused (the sons), and that a delay in recording the FIR or the fact that independent witnesses to a weapon recovery turned hostile did not undermine the prosecution's case, since the investigating officer's own testimony on recovery could still be relied upon. It also rejected the argument that the investigation was invalid because a police sub-inspector (rather than a circle inspector) handled it, holding the sub-inspector had authority to act when the circle inspector was unavailable. However, the Court found that the post-mortem report showed no injury matching the specific attack attributed to the fourth accused (the father), and that the FIR itself suggested only the two sons and the absconding accused were present at the critical moment, so it gave him the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him, while confirming the murder convictions and sentences of the two sons.

Lesson Learnt

A criminal conviction requires that the evidence specifically and credibly implicate each individual accused in the actual offence, even in a joint attack, if the physical/medical evidence does not match what one particular accused is alleged to have done, that person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt even while co-accused are rightly convicted.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case