Karnataka High Court
Khalid Hasan Ismail Ruknuddin vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD .
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY 01:' FEBRUARY;
BEFORE _ i i A
THE HOIWBLE MRJUSTICE§.R.KU_%;{A1i§ASWt§II4Y it "
CrI.P. No.70?}_9[?_Q1._C_, 4'
Between:
Khalid Hasan Ismail Ruknucidin, _
Aged about 29 years, "
R/o. Bhagekhatija I-Iouse_;i
Est floor, Siddi1S'E1'CCit'," ' '- 3. ; _
Bhatkal. '- _ j _ PETITIONER
(By SFi.Mui'ti§f{Vgi[D. Preietii'N.a_yiak, Advs.)
Stateifa' " V
Represented by';.Bhatk'aI Town Police,
"Ljttiara Kann-a_da District. .. RESPONDENT
ii " «, :g'i(I2y:'sti.1}f>;'IsI, Gotkhindi, HCGP)
Cr1.P is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
"'pra}{i'ngV«--to quash the further proceedings against the
petitioner/accused no.1 in S.C.No.19/2004 on the file of
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court--I, U.K. Karwar, arising
» 'atom Bhatkai Town P.S. Crime No.39/2003 for the
'--.offences u/s 302 r/w section 34 of IPC, and etc.
This CrI.P coming on for admission this dsajk',s..the
Court made the following-
ORDER
This criminal petition isifiledéuziideifi ll Cr.P.C. by the counsel for quash further proceedi1i§"s..V_Magainst' .th"e ll}oetit1oner--i"
accused No.1 in ,.$.C.No'."l:9_f2'0»Qfl file of Sessions Judge, U.K, Karwar arising from i 'Station, Crime No.39/ punishable under section. ii directed to take notice for the A ll ..(A3haIA'lge""s'l1eet has been laid against accused V Vl\lo..1:"--»t_o1-1.4"the.offence punishable under Section 302 contents discloses that on 13-3-2003 at l1.OQ__Ai1~p.m. in the open space at Kokti Bail on V.Riai1ganakatte road at Bhatkal town, accused Nos.1 to __53 with the common intention, alleged to have committed murder of deceased Buddi @ Kajal, fix daughter of Manju Gonda; accused No.1 smashed the head of the deceased with boundary stone;j"ac_eu's,ed No.2 has gagged the mouth of the accused No.3 has caught hov1d""of.deeea_se:dii aidiiig it in the commission of the murderd The coiiteritsvvof the charge sheet clearly"disc1ose.s'--.thatg No.1i' has assaulted the"d..ecea,s'e'd* iri1ear1sAof"a"'stone and caused her death.
4. _I «have counsel for the petitiorier Well aS--.if€s'p.o'i:d'e:nt.'
5.. 'coi;'.t1_se1_' for the petitioner submits thatioither acelised been acquitted and therefore, the ground' of parity, the petitioner--accused No.1 'A .Aa1.soA.._be acquitted. He relied on an unreported vAoi""this Court in Cr1.P.Nos.25-49/2007 c/w i"261v5./2607, disposed of on 6-8-2008 and decisions of =s.r,1dis'" Court in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs STATE OF ih"K:ARNATAKA (2001(3) Kar.L.J 551) and MUNEEJR AHMED QURESHI, MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS €/ STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARASWAMY LA'i'QUT POLICE, BANGALORE (2oo2(1) submitted that there are no sufficient"'evidence it connect the petitioner--accusegi Noll' with '0ffencue_.g
6. Learned counsel, for the respondent' sulfiliriitsi', that accused No.1 is abscloritcling charge sheet has been it
7. Though petitioner has relied decisions of this Cotiirt, of those cases as vtiell of the present case are lithe instant case, allegation Inadet..againstl_V'acc1i'sed No.1 is that he assaulted the means of a boundary stone and ._ she died. Till today, accused No.1 is ahbsconding. The offence alleged against him is under ~ sectien 302 IPC. Role played by this petitioner is not siriiilar to that of other accused while committing the H crime. Filing of charge sheet amounts to primafacie Qt/'