Karnataka High Court
Ibrahim Arafath vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
W.P. NOs. 24285-24286/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. IBRAHIM ARAFATH
S/O B K HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT: DOOR NO. 4-216/1
KARIBETTU MANE
BAJAL NANTHURU-53
BAJAL, MANGALURU-575 007
2. FAZAL @ PADDU
S/O NAZIR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT BUDAKANDU MANE
KARIBETTU ROAD
BAJAL NANTHURU-53
BAJAL, MANGALURU-575 007 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION
MANGALURU, REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
2
INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.35/2016 (CRIME
NO.247/2014) OF BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
D.K.DISTRICT, ON THE FILE OF THE A.C.J AND JMFC AT
BANTWAL, D.K, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.6.2018, COMING
ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 3 in Original SC No.5/2016 dated 19.5.2017, and later a split up case came to be registered for the petitioners herein in CC No.35/2016 (arising out of Crime No.247/2014 of Buntwal Rural Police Station) on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Buntwal, Dakshina Kannada, Magistrate.
2. The petitioners herein have claimed that some of the accused persons who were tried in the above noted Sessions Case by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, have been acquitted vide judgment dated 19.5.2017. Therefore, the petitioners claim that, the facts and 3 circumstances of this case and the allegations made against the petitioners and the acquitted accused persons are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature. However due to non availability of the petitioners, a split up charge sheet was filed against them in CC No.35/2016, pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. Therefore, the petitioners claim that, benefit of judgment of acquittal may also be extended to them and consequently, all further proceedings against them in CC No.35/2016 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada Mangaluru, may be quashed.
3. The benefit of judgment of acquittal can also be extended to the absconding accused persons, against whom a split up case has been registered and consequential quashing of the proceedings can be done only under peculiar circumstances of the case. 4 This point has been extensively dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court.
4. In this regard, it is worth to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, wherein, it was held that:
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when an accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co- accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused held proper."
5. In another decision reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer Vs. State of Karnataka by Kumaraswamy Layout Police, wherein this Court has held that:
5
"Entire case of the prosecution as against six accused is practically inseparable and individual one and especially when the Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any other material other than what is already produced and considered by Trial Court. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.
Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed, is quashed."
6. In the above said backdrop and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, the only point that requires for consideration of this court is - Whether the materials placed before the court against the accused persons who were already acquitted and the material available against the petitioners if they 6 are juxtapose compared with each other, the allegations are indivisible and inseparable in nature, in such an eventuality, the judgment of acquittal can also be extended to the absconding accused persons or against whom, a separate split up charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the court to examine the materials on record to find out whether the petitioners are entitled for such benefit in a given particular case. Therefore, it is just and necessary to ascertain the factual aspects of this case.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that on a complaint filed by one Jaleel on 19.11.2014 alleging that when he was travelling in a Ashok Leyland pickup vehicle KA-19/D-8921 along with the salesman by name Siddique and helper Mohammed Munavar towards B.C. Road and when they reached the place at Navoor at 7.15 p.m., at that time, from the back side of their vehicle, two bikes came with five accused and tried to commit dacoity by obstructing them from 7 proceeding further and assaulted Siddique and Munavar by showing knife and stabbed to their chest and neck and left hand. The complainant driven the vehicle very speedily and escaped from the spot.
8. On the basis of the above said allegations, the respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.247/2017 and after investigation submitted a charge sheet. During trial, as accused Nos.1 & 3 were got absconded, a split up case in CC No.35/2016 came to be registered.
9. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined in original case in S.C. No.5/2016 as many as 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked 22 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-22 and material objects as MOs.1 to 3. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that there was no acceptable evidence to prove that the accused have committed the offences charged against them. 8 The court also observed that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the court has acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 4 for the alleged offences.
10. On careful perusal of the materials on record, the allegations made against the petitioners and other acquitted accused persons are one and the same and they are inseperable and indivisible in nature. The evidence that has already been placed by the prosecution and appreciated by the trial Court also reveal that the allegations against the petitioners are not distinct and separate from the other acquitted accused persons.
11. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, considering the factual aspects of this case, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are once again tried for the same offences as the prosecution cannot put forth any better evidence than the one already placed before the court and appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, 9 the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of acquittal. If the prosecution is ordered to be continued, same amounts to waste of judicial time and also abuse of process of the court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petitions are allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No.35/2016 (Arising out of Crime No.247/2014 of Buntwala Rural Police Station) pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, for the offences under Section 341, 399, 397, 307 of IPC against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*