Bengaluru, Aug 26, 2026: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the trial court’s acquittal of notorious serial killer Cyanide Mohan alias Mohan Kumar in the 2006 murder of a woman named Shanta at Kollur.
A division bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod dismissed the state government’s appeal challenging the acquittal, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused.
The bench cited a Supreme Court ruling that in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. It held that there was no error in the trial court’s decision to acquit Mohan.
According to the prosecution, Mohan introduced himself to Shanta, a woman from the Kankanady area of Mangaluru, under the false name Rajesh. He allegedly lured her to Kollur on November 9, 2006, promising to marry her. After having sexual relations with her at a guest house, he allegedly asked her to leave her gold jewellery in the room and took her near the Swarnamukhi Mantapa behind the Kollur temple.
The prosecution alleged that Mohan gave her cyanide, claiming it was an abortion pill. After she died, he allegedly returned to the guest house, collected her gold jewellery and fled.
Shanta’s body was found near the temple. A post-mortem examination indicated the possibility of cyanide poisoning, after which the body was buried. Based on a complaint from her family, police initially questioned two persons.
In 2009, Mohan was arrested in a separate case. During the investigation, police reportedly found evidence linking him to Shanta’s murder. The body was subsequently exhumed and subjected to forensic examination as part of a fresh investigation.
However, since the body had completely decomposed, the prosecution could not conclusively establish that her death was caused by cyanide poisoning. The court also noted that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence to substantiate the allegation that Mohan had sexually assaulted the woman.
The High Court, therefore, found no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal.