The Karnataka High Court pronounced its decision in a case that had shocked many for its sheer brutality. Nearly a decade after a young woman’s mutilated body was found on farmland near Bagaluru, the Division Bench set aside the conviction of her husband, holding that suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof.
The bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the criminal appeal filed by Arun Kumar M., who had been serving life imprisonment for murder and related offences.
Read also:- Redefining Aravallis: Supreme Court Steps In, But Will Monday’s Hearing Freeze Mining Across the Region?
Background
The case dates back to December 2014. A cultivator stumbled upon a severely disfigured female body near a watchman’s shed. The injuries were horrific-throat slit, limbs severed, skin peeled-making identification difficult. Police later claimed the victim was Ramya, wife of the appellant.
The prosecution story was dramatic: a troubled marriage, allegations of cruelty, an alleged extramarital affair, and a conspiracy involving multiple accused. Arun Kumar was convicted by a sessions court in March 2024 under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 498A (cruelty by husband) of the IPC. He challenged that verdict before the High Court.
Read also:- J&K High Court Pulls Up Magistrate for Issuing Warrants After Cheque Bounce Settlement
Court’s Observations
Reading out a detailed judgment, the bench repeatedly returned to one central issue-the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the chain simply did not hold.
“There is no eyewitness to the alleged incident,” the court noted, adding that in such cases, every link must be firmly established. The judges found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s “last seen together” theory. Witnesses placed the accused and the victim together at different times, from mid-afternoon to evening, with unexplained delays of months in recording their statements.
On recovery of alleged weapons and articles, the bench was equally sceptical. Independent witnesses to seizures had either not been examined or turned hostile. “Without corroboration,” the court observed, “recovery cannot be said to be proved.”
Perhaps most damaging was the issue of identification. Except for the victim’s mother identifying a tattoo, there was no scientific confirmation like a DNA test. Given the condition of the body, the judges said, this gap could not be ignored.
The court also rejected the prosecution’s attempt to shift the burden onto the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. “Foundational facts must first be proved by the prosecution,” the bench said, making it clear that the law cannot be used to fill investigative gaps.
Read also:- Madras High Court Defers Plea to Halt ‘Parasakthi’ Release, Seeks Report From Writers’ Body
Decision
In the end, the High Court concluded that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant. “Suspicion, however grave, cannot be a substitute for proof,” the bench remarked while granting Arun Kumar the benefit of doubt.
The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court ordered his immediate release, subject to there being no other case against him, and directed that any fine paid be refunded. The matter was also referred to the District Legal Services Authority for deciding compensation to the victim’s mother, bringing the proceedings to a close.
Case Title: Arun Kumar M. vs State by Bagaluru Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1270 of 2024
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (against conviction under IPC Sections 302, 201, 498A)
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
