Karnataka High Court
Amar@ Kiran Kumar .T vs State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231
CRL.P No. 854 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 854 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
AMAR @ KIRAN KUMAR T.,
S/O THIMMARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1183,
GANGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE,
BEGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKARA R V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
Digitally signed ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE - 100.
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
REPRESENTED BY
COURT OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. S.P.P.,)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
C.C.NO.8983/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED C.J.M.,
BENGALURU WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231
CRL.P No. 854 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8983/2019 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).
2. The petitioner is accused No.10. The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.145/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Petitioner at the relevant point in time along with accused Nos. 7, 8, 9 was not available for trial as they were considered to be absconding. The investigation was complete and charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court by the jurisdictional police.
The concerned Court tries the matter qua accused Nos. 1 -3- NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 to 6 and draws up a split charge sheet against accused Nos. 7 to 10.
3. After drawing up of the split charge sheet the concerned Court acquits accused Nos. 2 to 4 of the said offences and accused Nos. 5 to 6 as their presence was not required in the case therein. The split charge sheet in C.C.No.8983/2019 is what is sought to be tried at this juncture. The offences punishable against this petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Therefore, it is a collective act and not an individual overt-act performed by each one of the persons, as it is preparation for commission of dacoity.
4. The concerned Court in terms of its order on the following reasons acquitted the other accused.
"21. If upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW.1, 2 and 4, there is no corroboration among them about the activities of accused persons on the spot and their evidence is not in corroboration to the mahazar. As per the say of PW.1 when they visited the spot and parked their vehicles for some distance, CW.1 sent CW.3 Sampangi and PW.4 Ramachandra to confirm regarding credible information.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 Accordingly, CW.3 and P.W.4 visited the spot confirmed regarding credible information and thereafter they conducted raid. Whereas, as per the say of PW.2, when they visited the spot and parked their vehicles for some distance, they directly observed the activities of 7 to 8 persons and thereafter they conducted the raid. Further as per the say of PW.1, there were 10 persons on the spot when they conductred raid where as it is 7 to 8 persons as per the say of PW.2. Further as per the say of P.W.2 they observed the activities of 7 to 8 persons and found that they with the help of accused No.5 Monisha were attempting to stop the vehicles passing on the said road by giving signal for the purpose of docoity. Thereafter, they conducted the raid. Further, as per the say of PW.4 after parking the vehicle for some distance, they observed the activities of 10 persons for about 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter they conducted raid. In the opinion of this court PW.1, 2 and 4 have not stated on what basis they decided that the accused persons were on the spot only for the purpose of committing docoity. Moreover, PW.1, 2 and 4 not explained the weapons possessed by each accused persons while preparing to commit docoity as mentioned in the mahazar. Absolutely, the testimony of PW.1, 2 and 4 is not inspiring confidence to hold that these accused persons on the said date, time and place were gathered only for the purpose of committing docoity. Therefore, having regard to the evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I answered point No.1 and 2 in the Negative."-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022
5. The finding so rendered would undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner - accused No.10.
Though the petitioner has escaped trial, no indulgence should be shown to those accused who escape trial, precious judicial time is now more important and overwhelming. Therefore, to save precious judicial time for an eventuality of acquittal of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings following reasons so rendered by the concerned Court.
6. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment of this Court dated 02.09.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.7720/2022, which reads as follows:
"4. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 in S.C.No.103/2018. At the relevant point in time, when the trial was on, the petitioner was not available for trial, as he was allegedly absconding and a split charge sheet was issued against the petitioner in S.C.No.87/2019 in terms of an order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 10.06.2019. The continuation of proceedings in S.C.No.87/2019 is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The said allegation is necessarily to be -6- NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 common against all the accused and it is infact common against all the accused. The acquittal order passed by the concerned Court is on the basis of the complainant himself turning hostile. In the teeth of the fact that the complainant himself turned hostile, the Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be the same order as is passed by the concerned Court acquitting the aforesaid accused.
6. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission to contend that the petitioner would escape trial, should necessarily face trial and considered for acquittal by the concerned Court and this Court should not interfere at this juncture, as a person, who has escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence under section 482 of Cr.P.C .
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The allegation was against 22 accused and the offences alleged were common, the allegations are also common. The concerned Court, by its order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1, to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 by rendering the following reason:
REASONS
9. Poin"t No.1 to 5: The P.W.1 has stated that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. when P.W.4 was insider the Bar, somebody picked up quarrel with him and those persons damaged the Bar and hence, he sustained injuries. He has also stated that, the P.W.2 also sustained injuries in the incident and both of them taken treatment in the Wenlock hospital. The P.W.2, P.W.4 and Babanna sustained injuries and therefore, he filed the first information before the Police. He has deposed that the police came to the Bar and drawn the panchanama in Ex.P.2. The P.W.2 has deposed that when he was in the Bar of P.W.1 many people -7- NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 assembled and one of them thrown stone towards him and therefore, himself and P.W.4 sustained injuries and took treatment in the hospital.
10. P.W.3 has deposed that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the P.W.4 was inside the Bar, about 25 persons came to the Bar and there was quarrel between P.W.4 and those 25 persons. He has deposed that such 25 persons damaged the Bar and he took treatment in Wenlock hospital for the injuries sustained in the incident. The P.W.1 to 3 have not stated the name of any of the accused of this case and even not identified the accused. The prosecution treated these witnesses hostile and cross examined. The P.W.1 to 3 have totally denied the allegation that the accused of this case have quarrelled with P.W.4, assaulted P.W.7 to 7, damaged the Bar and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar.
11. The P.W.4 to 7 have totally denied the incident itself. The P.W.8 and P.W.9 have deposed that they have not witnesses the incident. The P.W.4 to 9 have been cross examined by the prosecution and even in the cross-examination the P.W.4 to 9 denied the allegation made by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused that they have formed unlawful assembly, committed criminal trespass in the Bar of P.W.1, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 to 7 and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar of P.W.1. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences alleged against them because of insufficient evidence. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 395, 427 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 Their bal bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to retain the material objects as they are required in split up cases."
9. The reason for acquitting the other accused as afore-quoted is the fact that the complainant himself had turned hostile and other witnesses had not supported the charge sheet. If the complainant had turned hostile and it resulting in acquittal of the aforesaid accused, it cannot but be said that the same would be applicable to the petitioner as well, notwithstanding the fact that he was not available for trial. It is not the case of sending the petitioner for trial for the very same offences and result being the same as is ordered on 01.12.2021 in S.C.No.103/2018. It would be an exercise in futility to permit further trial, which would be of no utility and be a waste of judicial time.
10. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows:
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non- bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under:-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 "The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case.
Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed."
13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-
accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt."
14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 - complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.
15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court.
17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused - petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered "after conviction" in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also.
18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned.
In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected."
The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police.
In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner."
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41231 CRL.P No. 854 of 2022 In the light of the allegations against the petitioner and other accused being similar; accused Nos.2 to 6 having been acquitted, and the afore-extracted judgment of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the subject petition for the very same reasons rendered by this Court (supra).
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.10 in C.C.No.8983/2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benagluru City, Bengaluru, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5