Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri P M Ashraf vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2019

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                                        CRL.P. No.6320/2018

                              1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.6320 OF 2018

BETWEEN :
SRI. P.M. ASHRAF
S/O MAMMAD
AGED 32 YEARS
R/AT MALLIKARJUNA COLONY
GARAGANDUR VILLAGE
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. R.D. PANCHAM, ADVOCATE)

AND :
1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SUNTICOPPA POLICE STATION
       REP. BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001

2.     SRI. MUSTHAFA M.A.
       S/O ABDULLA
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
       R/AT MALLIKARJUNA COLONY
       GARAGANDURU VILLAGE
       SUNTICOPPA
       KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1)
                            ....
                                         CRL.P. No.6320/2018

                             2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE IN     C.C.NO.362/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMWARPET, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 307,
323 OF IPC.

     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                         ORDER

The petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C. No.41/2016. Police after investigation into FIR No.42/2015 filed charge sheet in C.C. No.106/2016 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet against nine accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Since petitioner had absconded, a split-up charge sheet has been filed in C.C. No.362/2016. After committing the case, accused No.7 also did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, split up charge sheet has been filed in S.C. No.88/2016. Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu District, Madikeri by judgment and order dated 2nd January 2018 CRL.P. No.6320/2018 3 in S.C. Nos.41/2016 & 88/2016 has acquitted accused No.2 to 9.

2. Prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused.

3. Shri.Pancham R.D., learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not in the country at the time of commission of alleged offence. He further submitted that in view of findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs No. 20 and 21 and the charges against all accused being common, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against petitioner.

4. Learned HCGP in her usual fairness does not dispute the said contentions.

4

5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.

6. The learned Trial Judge, on consideration of the material on record has held thus:

"20. Thus, the ocular evidence of PW's. 1 to 3 coupled with the Wound Certificates (Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-6) would establish that PW's 1 to 3 had sustained simple injuries as mentioned therein. The prosecution has only been able to establish its case to the said extent and there is no ocular or medical evidence, which speak about the involvement of accused Nos. 2 to 9 in the alleged offence or for having caused injuries to PW's 1 to 3. PW's. 1 to 3, who are the injured victims and eyewitnesses have all turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

21. Hence, by considering the evidence available on record, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence against accused Nos. 2 to 9, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against accused Nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. The statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., cannot be considered and relied upon, since they are inadmissible in evidence. Since none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the accused Nos. 2 to 9 are entitled to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. Hence, I answer Point Nos. 1 to 7 in the "Negative"."

(emphasis supplied) CRL.P. No.6320/2018 5

7. A careful reading of the above case, shows that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges. Further, the medical evidence shows that the victim had sustained simple injuries.

8. This Court has taken a consistent view that when the co-accused have been acquitted, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against remaining accused. [See, Ashraf K.S. Vs. The State (Crl.P.No.3809/2017 decided on 12.06.2018)].

9. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.362/2016 arising out of Crime No.42/2015 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet, are quashed, so far as petitioner is concerned.

6

10. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS