Wife Killed, Body Mutilated Over Alleged Affair, Facebook Posts: Karnataka HC Acquits Husband on Benefit of Doubt

The Karnataka High Court recently acquitted a Bengaluru man who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to sustain a conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence.

A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T set aside the conviction of Arun Kumar, who had been found guilty by a sessions court in March 2024 for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 498A (cruelty by husband) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case related to the killing of Ramya, who had married Arun Kumar in November 2013. On December 30, 2014, a land cultivator discovered the body of an unidentified woman with severe mutilation on his land at Kadusonnappanahalli. The body bore multiple sharp injuries, including cut-throat wounds, missing limbs, and peeling of skin from the scalp to the chest, making identification difficult.

According to the prosecution, Arun had been in a relationship with Ramya prior to their marriage in November 2013. The relationship, the prosecution claimed, was marked by disputes even before the wedding, with Ramya allegedly becoming pregnant during their courtship, following which Arun Kumar initially resisted marriage and later agreed after police intervention.

The prosecution further alleged that marital discord soon surfaced, with Arun Kumar suspecting Ramya’s character and sending her back to her parental home within months of the marriage. During this period, it was claimed that he developed a relationship with another woman and sought to sever ties with Ramya, leading to multiple complaints, counter-complaints, and alleged confrontations between both families in the months preceding Ramya’s death.

The prosecution claimed that Ramya posted derogatory and defamatory messages on Facebook, stating that Arun's paramour was “available to all,” and allegedly shared her mobile number and personal details publicly. It was alleged that these posts were circulated among the other woman’s friends and contacts, causing embarrassment and distress to her.

Based on this, the prosecution asserted that the other woman, along with Arun Kumar, developed animosity towards Ramya. According to the case put forward by the police, the other woman allegedly expressed a desire to “teach Ramya a lesson” after the Facebook posts, and it was claimed that this animosity formed part of the background to the alleged conspiracy to eliminate Ramya.

Following the investigation, police alleged that Arun Kumar, after developing an extramarital relationship, conspired with others to murder Ramya. According to the prosecution, on December 29, 2014, he called her to Kappa Coffee Day in Kasturi Nagar, took her in an autorickshaw to an isolated location, where she was allegedly killed with knives, and her body was later mutilated to destroy evidence.

The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last-seen theory, recovery of weapons, and medical evidence, to convict Arun Kumar, even as several co-accused were acquitted, two died during trial, and one remained absconding.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that while the medical evidence clearly established that the death was homicidal, the prosecution failed to link Arun Kumar to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen together” theory. Witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased with the accused gave contradictory timelines, their statements were recorded months after the incident, and some key witnesses turned hostile. One material witness was not tendered for cross-examination, rendering his testimony unreliable.

Court also expressed doubt over the recovery of incriminating articles, including the alleged murder weapon. It noted that independent seizure witnesses were not examined and one key panch witness turned hostile, weakening the prosecution’s case on recoveries.

On the issue of identification of the body, court noted that except for the mother of the deceased identifying a tattoo mark, no scientific or corroborative evidence was produced. Despite the severe disfigurement of the body, no DNA test was conducted to conclusively establish identity.

Rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the bench held that the burden could not be shifted to the accused without the prosecution first establishing foundational facts linking him to the crime scene or recovery of the body.

“In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” court observed, adding that missing links in the chain of circumstances entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.

"...a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be difficult to connect accused No.1 to the crime. The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency creating significant gap, leading to other possible hypothesis as aforementioned. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt mus be extended to accused No.1," the division bench held. 

Accordingly, court acquitted Arun Kumar of all charges, directed his immediate release if not required in any other case, and ordered refund of any fine paid. The bench also referred the matter to the District Legal Services Authority for consideration of compensation to the victim’s mother under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case Title: Arun Kumar M vs State

Judgment Date: December 18, 2025

Bench: Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T