Karnataka High Court
Dr K Naganna vs The State Of Karnataka By Sampige Halli ... on 27 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6410 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
DR K NAGANNA,
AGED 80 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. KENCHAPPA,
R/AT NO.3/224,
CHRISTIAN LANE,
KADAPA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 516001. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAMPIGE HALLI POLICE,
BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ROHIT B.J, HCGP)
****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDING PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M.,
2
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.17512/2009 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FROM ALL OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing further proceedings in C.C. No.17512/2009 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and to acquit the petitioner from all offences.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by Venkataswamy, the Sampigehalli Police had registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 363(A), 365, 326, 307, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1965. On completion of investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet which was registered in C.C. No.2443/2009 and after committal it was registered as S.C. No.418/2009. Even though the 3 chargesheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6, the accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 did not appear before the Sessions Court, but the accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 alone faced the trial. On full pledged trial, the Sessions Court has held that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 and has acquitted them. A split charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 which is numbered as C.C. No.17512/2009. The petitioner - accused No.6 has preferred this petition challenging the split charge-sheet.
3. The main grounds of challenge are that, the evidence placed on record by the prosecution in S.C. No.418/2009 do not make out a prima facie case to prove the offence said to have been committed by accused No.6. The prosecution witnesses - PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The victim namely PW5 has not stated about the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons. 4 There are no specific allegations against petitioner - accused No.6 to show that he was involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The entire evidence placed in S.C. No.418/2009 has not proved the prosecution version. Even if the trial is held in a split-up case in C.C. No.17512/2009, no purpose would be served. At present, the petitioner is aged about 89 years old, as such, he is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings because of his health problems.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
- accused No.6 and learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. It is an admitted fact that the Sampigehalli police had submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 363(A), 365, 326, 307, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 r/w 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1965. Out of six accused, three accused 5 namely accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 faced the trial and the said accused were acquitted as none of the independent witnesses including the victim did not support the prosecution case, as such, they were acquitted. Since accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 were not available for trial, a split- up charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and two others.
6. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that in Sessions Case No.418/2009 in which the accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 were subjected to trial, no convincing evidence has been placed by independent witnesses or the victim. As such, the said accused were acquitted. Now, if the trial is held in the present split-up charge-sheet, some independent witnesses will have to be examined and on the basis of their evidence, no conviction is possible. Thus, the further proceedings in C.C. No.17512/2009 may be quashed. 6
7. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on a decision reported in 2005 (3) Kar.L.J. 76 (DB) in the case of State of Karnataka vs K.C.Narasegowda, which reads as under:
"5. As is well-settled from the catena of decisions of the Apex Court including Suresh Chaudhary v State of Bihar, Bijoy Singh v State of Bihar, Raja Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, Anil Rai v State of Bihar and Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, where on evaluation of a case, no conviction of any accused is possible, the benefit of doubt extended to the co-accused similarly situated is also available for the non- appealing accused. In the present case also, this Court has dealt in detail so far as the evidence against the accused 2 to 9 were concerned in the Crl.A.No.225 of 1998 and found that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against any of the accused. On going through the facts and circumstances as well as the reasoning of this Court, we also hold that as the entire material evidence of the prosecution is one and the same as against all 7 the accused including the non-appealing accused 1 who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as is extended to his co- accused in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chaudhary and others cases."
8. In view of the observations made in the aforesaid case, it is necessary to consider whether the evidence to be placed on record through prosecution witnesses is likely to prove the offence committed by the petitioner.
9. As already stated above, none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in Sessions Case No.418/2009 and accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 have been acquitted. The entire material evidence of the prosecution is the same against the present petitioner also. Since, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced in Sessions Case No.418/2009, no useful purpose would be served in holding a fresh trial 8 against the petitioner. Thus, the proceedings needs to be quashed against the petitioner herein.
10. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that when there is no chance of case ending in conviction against the petitioner, there is no point in formally completing the procedure to pronounce the verdict at a later date, which is nothing but futile exercise. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed.
ii. Further proceedings in C.C. No.17512/2009 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJ