Karnataka High Court
Ammi Dan @ Hameed vs The State on 28 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301
CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201883 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
between:
AMMI DAN @ HAMEED,
S/O BIDVAN, @ BUDWAN,
AGE: 35 YEARS, (AS PER LCO) OCC:
R/O AMBIKANNMANE, PAIVALIKE, KASARGOD
KERALA-671322.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE THROUGH NELOGI PSI,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
JEWARGI, KALABURAGI.
COURT OF REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P.
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585107.
2. ABDUL KHADAR S/O P.A.MAITHU
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O CHEMBARIKA,
CHANDRAGIRI
KALANDU TALUKA, KASARGOD DISTRICT
KERALA-671371.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301
CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER - AMMI DAN HAMEED - WHO
IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.4 IN CRIME NO.18/2020
REGISTERED BY THE NELOGI POLICE STATION, TQ. JEWARGI
DIST. KALABURAGI AND CHARGED WITH OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120(B) 109, 395, 364, 302, 201,
303, 465, 473, OF THE IPC PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTAL
COURT - CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JEVARAGI IN C.C.
NO.211/2024 MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAYS THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO. A) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.18/2020 DATED 04.05.2025 B) TO TERMINATE ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.211/2024 EMANATING
FROM THE CHARGE SHEET/ FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.18/2020.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In this petition, the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused no. 4 is seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No.211/2024 arising out of Crime No.18/2020 of Nelogi Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 395, 364, 302, 201, 303, 465 and Section 473 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before Civil Judge and JMFC, Jevaragi, by placing reliance -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR on the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.159/2021 thereby acquitting accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21.
2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:
The present petitioner in the petition, along with other co-accused, was subjected to criminal prosecution alleging that, owing to prior animosity between accused No.2 and deceased Taslim, on 31.01.2020 at about 4:30 p.m. on SH-155 at Belur Village, accused Nos.6 to 12, in furtherance of their common object and armed with deadly weapons, arrived in two Brezza cars, formed an unlawful assembly, threatened and kidnapped the deceased, and committed dacoity of the vehicle. It is further alleged that, at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4, accused Nos.13 and 14 received supari, hatched a conspiracy to commit the offence, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120B and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Consequently, all accused were charged with offences -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. As the present petitioner was absconding, a split charge sheet was filed. The remaining accused, namely accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21, were tried, and upon conclusion of full-fledged trial, the Sessions Judge, exercising power under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., acquitted them of offences under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 395, 363, 302, 201, 465 and 473 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. In the backdrop of the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.159/2021, the present petition is filed on the premise that the principal accused have already been acquitted of the very offences, and that the prosecution case against the petitioner is inseparable from that of the acquitted co-accused. It is contended that the only allegation against the petitioner pertains to the alleged criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and that, in view of the categorical findings recorded by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner, who stands on the same footing as the acquitted accused are entitled to similar -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR relief by exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Both learned counsel for the petitioner, adopting identical arguments, have drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant findings of the Sessions Judge while acquitting the co-accused. Particular emphasis is placed on paragraphs 43 to 46 of the judgment to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the allegations and overt acts attributed to the petitioner limited to the allegation of conspiracy are indistinguishable from those levelled against the acquitted accused, and the evidence adduced in the case is inseparable and indivisible. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of acquittal. It is further argued that, even if the prosecution is permitted to proceed, the likelihood of conviction is extremely remote, and subjecting the petitioner to a prolonged criminal trial -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.159/2021 has not been challenged by the State and has attained finality, and consequently continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP, while not disputing the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.159/2021, contends that the petitioner was absconding, resulting in the filing of a split charge sheet, and that he must face trial independently. It is argued that, in view of the grave nature of allegations, including the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the co-accused have been acquitted.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State, this Court considers it necessary, before proceeding further, to examine the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR crucial findings recorded by the Sessions Judge while acquitting the co-accused. Paragraphs 28 to 46 of the judgment are therefore relevant and are required to be extracted for proper consideration.
"28. Similarly in his further cross-examination by the learned PP at para-13 and 14 when a suggestion was put to the witness in respect of phone call dated 01.02.2020 made by accused No.1 as well as alleged incident dated 02.02.2020 that as per information given by accused No.6. 7 and 14, accused No.5 to 7, 9, 10, 12 and 21 have kidnapped the deceased Taslim for ransom and handed over to accused No.17 and then came to know that his brother has been murdered for that he has given police supplementary before the CCB statement Mangaluru, but PW.14 has specifically denied the same as false. So this material evidence of PW.14 -complainant itself demolishes entire case of the prosecution.
29. So also, during the course of cross-examination by the learned defence counsel also PW.14 admits that about 3 to 4 criminal cases came to be registered against his brother for illegal liquor business and pleads ignorance about his presence during TIP by the Tahasildar Kalaburagi. In his further cross-examination though states that the alleged incident has taken place within 3-4 minutes and can identify accused No.6 -Irfan and one Yasmin, but he pleads ignorance as to accused No. 17 has -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR committed murder of deceased Taslim. The process of TIP also not proved by the prosecution by examining CW.55 then Tahasildar Jewargi, as such his report has no evidentiary value. This is also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. In his further cross-examination the suggestions made and denied by the witness.
30. Coming to the evidence of PW.29-Yasmin who is none else wife of deceased Mutaslim states that CW.1 and 32 are her in-laws, her deceased husband was doing liquor business in Dubai, he returned back but was not doing anything. Further though states that accused No.1 was threatening, but she has turned against her statement as well as supplementary statement made before the police.
31. In her cross-examination by the learned PP except the fact that CW.1. 27 and 30 were accompanied with her husband while returning to native place from Kalaburagi prison, she has specifically denied the suggestion that at that time about 6-7members kidnapped her husband as stated by CW. 1. Further when a suggestion was put to the witness by the learned PP based on Ex.P.80 statement and Ex.P.81 supplementary statement, she has specifically denied the same, which is also materially affects the case of the prosecution.
32. So also, PW.30 who is none other than mother of deceased states that earlier her son was working at Mumbai and then went to Dubai. but she does not know what was doing there and police have not enquired her -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR about the incident, she states that accused No.1 murdered her son through others.
33. In her cross-examination by the learned PP except the fact that CW.1, 27 and 30 were accompanied with her son while returning to native place from Kalaburagi prison. nothing has been supported to believe the case of the prosecution as stated in Ex.P.82 and 83 statement and supplementary statement of the said witness, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
34. PW.31- Wasim one of the relatives of the deceased who said to have received the dead body of Taslim after examination of PME also turned against the statement and supplementary statement made before the police as per Ex.P.84 and 85, except the fact that though he heard that accused No.1 murdered Taslim through accused No.4, but say he did not know reason behind the crime and nothing has been supported in his cross- examination by the learned PP. which is contrary to the case of the prosecution.
35. Coming to the evidence of PW.38 the then Junior Engineer of PWD Sub Division Jewargi he deposed that as per requisition received from the police, he visited the spot on 21.03.2020 shown by CW.57 CPC-859 of Jewargi Police Station and he prepared spot sketch as per Ex.P.95. In his cross-examination it has been elicited that though he prepared rough sketch on the spot, but he has prepared Ex.P.95 in the office itself. So evidence of Pw.38 also not worthy of credence.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR
36. PW.28 Ranganath then PC-2367 of Bantwal city PS Mangaluru has deposed that on 02.02.2020 in the evening dead body of Taslim was being shifted from the open place of Shanti Nagar to Venlock hospital and one Kashinath police of Nelogi police accompanied him to the hospital. In his cross-examination only suggestions made and denied by the witness.
37. With regard to last seen theory is concern, generally the last seen theory comes into play when there will be time gap between accused and deceased were seen last alive and when deceased found dead. It is settled that when role of the accused persons is not firmly established then it is not appropriate to convict the accused persons.
38. So the conduct of accused persons and the fact of last seen together plus other circumstances have to be looked into. Coming to the version of PW.22 to 25 who said to have last seen the deceased along with accused No.6 to 12 at Bellur have also turned against their statements made before the police and not supported the case of the prosecution. So in this context it is not obligatory on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased and accused persons parted company.
39. It may be noted that Section 8 of the Indian evidence Act deals with relevance of motive in criminal trial. With regard to relevancy of motive is concern it is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR well settled that motive is not an ingredient of the offence and it is only a reason which prompts intention. It may be noted that so far as in respect of the fact that deceased and accused No.2 who said to have done illegal business in abroad and while doing so accused No.2 had animosity with the deceased who said to have caused loss of 4.00 crores and informed about his illegal activities with the concerned police. But in this regard except version of hearsay witnesses absolutely there is no evidence on record.
40. As discussed supra in this connection in the cross-examination of PW.14 by the learned PP though admits that there was enmity between deceased brother in respect of their illegal business at Dubai and UAE and also admits that accused No.1 to 3 were threatening his brother in connection with Khaliya Rafiq murder case and conspiracy to eliminate his brother with the help of people of accused No.1. but when a specific suggestion was put to the witness that as per say of accused No. 15, accused No. 19 at the instance of accused No.1 to 4 planned to kidnap his brother through accused No.5 to 7 and hand over him to the people of accused No. 1. he denied as false. As such the motive is also not established by the prosecution.
41. With regard to alleged conspiracy is concern PW.27 and 32 who are the material witnesses heard about conspiracy of alleged murder while sharing thoughts amongst accused No.2 and 4 also turned hostile.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR
42. Then, voluntary statements of the accused No.6. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 is concerned, the essential ingredient of Section 27 of Evidence Act is that, the information given by the accused must lead to be discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information and only such portion of information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused. So, now it is clear that the discovery of fact must relate to the commission of some offence. In this regard, the last few lines of voluntary statements of and recovery of material objects, but the aforesaid confessional statements of accused have not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law and as rightly argued by the defence counsel voluntary statements of accused are hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act.
43. It is worth to note that admittedly none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. though during the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. through VC nothing worth has been explained, but when the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing the prima facie guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt then Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act being an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act does not attract.
44. Admittedly the prosecution has failed to secure and examine remaining material witnesses like Scientific, Medical, Official witnesses and IOs who also did not come forward to give evidence before the court. So non
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR examination of these material witnesses is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the material on record do not suggests that all the accused have hatched a plan and committed the murder of deceased Taslim. Further there is no specific evidence on record as to which of the accused has committed specific offence.
45. In the case on hand there are material contradictions in the evidence of witness and there are omissions and irregularities in the investigation. For these reasons it can be held that the circumstantial evidence thereupon reliance has been placed by prosecution cannot be said to have formed a complete link in the chain to arrive at the guilt of the accused, as such in the absence of other corroborative evidence it is not safe to rely upon evidence of hearsay witnesses only for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that accused have pre-planned then intentionally kidnapped and committed murder of deceased Taslim.
46. In these circumstances, it can be held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no positive evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. For the aforesaid reasons arguments advanced by the learned PP is liable to be rejected. On the other hand arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused holds good. Consequently. accused No.6. 7. 10 to 15, 20 and 21 are
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR entitled for acquittal of the aforesaid offence. Hence, I answer Point Nos-1 to 4 are in the Negative."
7. On a careful reading of the detailed observations made by the learned Sessions Judge which formed the basis for acquittal of the co-accused, it becomes abundantly clear that the allegations against the present petitioner stands on the same footing as those levelled against the acquitted accused. These allegations are wholly interwoven with the broader prosecution theory which has already been disbelieved in its entirety by the Sessions Court.
8. The extracted findings from paragraphs 28 to 46 of the Sessions Court judgment disclose several crucial deficiencies which directly impact the sustainability of the prosecution against the present petitioner. The Sessions Judge has categorically noted that the principal witnesses, namely PW.22 to PW.25, who allegedly last saw the deceased in the company of accused Nos.6 to 12 at Belur,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR have turned completely hostile. Further, the Sessions Judge, while analysing the cross-examination of PW.14, the complainant, has highlighted that this witness specifically denied the core allegation that the deceased was kidnapped at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4. The Sessions Judge has also adverted to the voluntary statements of accused Nos.6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 and has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the alleged recoveries are not proved in accordance with law. In addition, the Sessions Court has identified material contradictions, omissions, and serious lapses in the investigation, ultimately holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not form a complete and unbroken link pointing to the guilt of the accused. On this overall assessment, the co-accused, namely accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21, were acquitted of all
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR charges under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 395, 363, 302, 201, 465 and 473 read with Section 149 of IPC.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Akhilesh Singh (AIR 2005 SC 268) as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Muneer Ahmed Qureshi @ Gaun Muneer v. State of Karnataka [2002 (1) KCCR 1]. The principles laid down therein, particularly that where the evidence against co- accused is inseparable and indivisible and the main accused have been acquitted on merits, continuation of proceedings against the absconding accused would be an abuse of process squarely apply to the present case. Here, the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The most crucial circumstance, namely the "last seen" theory, has collapsed in view of key witnesses turning hostile. Once the substratum of the prosecution case has been completely dislodged by the findings in S.C. No.159/2021, this Court is of the considered view that the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301 CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025 HC-KAR present petitioner, who face allegations of identical and inseparable nature, cannot be compelled to undergo a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, the petition deserve to be allowed and the proceedings pending against accused Nos.4 , is liable to be quashed.
10. As already discussed, even if the sessions cases were to be independently prosecuted, the likelihood of conviction of the petitioner is extremely remote. In fact, in light of the categorical findings recorded by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.159/2021, the possibility of conviction is virtually non-existent. Subjecting the petitioner to a prolonged criminal trial in such circumstances would amount to permitting an abuse of the judicial process, which this Court cannot countenance. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings is wholly unwarranted and liable to be quashed.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7301
CRL.P No. 201883 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings pending in CC
No.211/2024 arising out of Crime No.18/2020 of Nelogi Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 395, 364, 302, 201, 303, 465 and Section 473 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before Civil Judge and JMFC, Jevaragi, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17 CT:SI