The Evidence Was Identical. Only One Of Them Went To Prison.
A trial court convicted the first accused of murder and acquitted the second on the self-same evidence. A Division Bench has undone the conviction and confirmed the acquittal.
The Court held the trial court fell in error in convicting accused No. 1 while acquitting accused No. 2 on the self-same evidence. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and where two views are reasonably possible the one favourable to the accused must be adopted — in dubio pro reo. The conviction under Sections 302 and 201 was set aside, the accused acquitted and released forthwith, and the State's appeal against the acquittal dismissed.
- The same evidence cannot convict one and acquit another without something that distinguishes them.
- Suspicion is not proof, however strong it feels.
- Two reasonable views mean acquittal — the maxim in dubio pro reo applied in terms.
- Released forthwith, with the Registry directed to tell the jail authority at once.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Citation
- Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2019
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2019
- Decided
- 1 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside, accused acquitted and released
The inconsistency at the heart of it
The Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 1 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code, and acquitted accused No. 2.
Both findings rested on the self-same evidence. The Division Bench held the trial court fell in error in doing so.
The standard applied
Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.
Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must necessarily be adopted. The maxim in dubio pro reo — when in doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt — squarely applied.
The prosecution had therefore failed to prove the guilt of accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt, and he was entitled to an acquittal.
What was ordered
The appeal by accused No. 1 was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 302 and 201 set aside. He was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, with the Registry to communicate the judgment to the jail authority.
Because the conviction of accused No. 1 could not stand, the question of interfering with the acquittal of accused No. 2 did not arise. The State's appeal was dismissed and that acquittal confirmed.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a court convict one accused and acquit another on identical evidence?
Not without material that genuinely distinguishes them. Here the Division Bench held it was an error and set the conviction aside.
What does in dubio pro reo mean?
When in doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt — the rule the Court applied.
Appealing a conviction where a co-accused walked free
- Set the evidence against each accused side by side and show it is the same body of material.
- Force the prosecution to identify what distinguishes your client; if nothing does, the conviction cannot stand.
- Plead the two-views rule expressly, with the passages of evidence that support the innocent view.
- Ask for release forthwith and a direction to the jail authority in the same order.
Source. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2019, decided 1 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in