Nobody Framed A Murder Charge. Twenty-Two Years On, The Court Ordered One.
The trial court acquitted, having never framed a charge under Section 302. A Division Bench has sent the case back and told the police and health departments to answer for how it was handled.
The Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of framing a charge under Section 302 and giving a definite finding. The revision was allowed, the order of discharge under Section 302 set aside, and the two sessions cases directed to be clubbed. The Court also directed disciplinary action be considered against the investigating officer and the doctors, and listed the case for compliance.
- The charge was never framed. The judge failed to take note of material on the record and did not frame one under Section 302.
- An investigating officer is answerable for the manner and methodology of the investigation, and a flagrant default cannot be overlooked.
- The medical evidence was very poor, and further opinion may be taken from a forensic expert and a medical board.
- A four-month deadline was set, the incident dating from 2004.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Bench
- Justice H.P.SANDESH, Justice B.PRAMOD
- Citation
- Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2013
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2013
- Decided
- 29 August 2026
- Outcome
- Acquittal set aside; matter remanded to frame a charge under Section 302
What went wrong at the trial
The investigation was not proper, and the medical evidence was very poor.
Beyond that, the judge who conducted the case failed to take note of material on the record and failed to frame a charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code at all.
What the Court said about investigation
A default or breach of duty, intentional or otherwise, can sometimes prove fatal to the prosecution. An investigating officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing the investigation.
Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks of a deliberate act or an irresponsible attitude, no court can afford to overlook it, whether or not it caused prejudice.
The Court applied Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand on lapses by an investigating officer, and Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal on the duty of an investigating officer to follow the police manual and of a doctor to follow the known canons of medical practice.
The orders made
The revision was allowed, the discharge order of 25 September 2012 under Section 302 set aside, and the trial judge directed to club the two sessions cases and consider the matter under Section 302.
The judgment of acquittal of 28 October 2017 was set aside and the matter remanded for the limited purpose of framing a charge under Section 302 and giving a definite finding — the findings on the other offences standing.
The State and the accused were directed to appear before the trial court on 17 September 2026 without notice, and the matter is to be disposed of within four months of that date, the incident being from 2004. A copy goes to the Director General of Police and the Principal Secretary, Health, who must report compliance within 45 days; the case is listed on 4 November 2026.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can an acquittal be set aside because no murder charge was framed?
Yes. The Court set the acquittal aside and remanded the case for the limited purpose of framing a charge under Section 302.
Can a court order action against the investigating officer?
It directed the trial court to order disciplinary action if it finds laxity or misconduct, and sent the judgment to the DGP and the Health Department.
When the trial court framed the wrong charge
- Read the charge against the material on record early; an unframed charge is a ground of appeal in itself.
- Document the investigative lapses specifically, and cite Gajoo and Dayal Singh for the consequence.
- Ask for a limited remand rather than a retrial where findings on other offences are sound.
- Seek a time-bound direction where the incident is decades old; this one got four months.
Source. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2013, decided 29 August 2026 by Justice H.P.SANDESH, Justice B.PRAMOD. 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