Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasappa S/O. Shripati Jamadar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201244/2016
BETWEEN:
Sharanabasappa
s/o.Shripati Jamadar
aged 28 years, Occ: Driver
r/o.Balundagi, Afzalpur
Kalaburagi District
...PETITIONER
(BY Sri R.S.Lagali, Adv.,)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Rep.by the PSI
Afzalpur Police Station
Rep.by Addl.SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
...RESPONDENT
(BY Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)
-2-
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioner praying that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this criminal
petition and thereby quash the entire proceedings in
Criminal Case No.277/2015 pending on the file of Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Court Afzalpur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 307,
302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC along with Sections 25 and
27 of Indian Arms Act, in the interest of justice and
equity.
This criminal petition having been heard, reserved
for orders and coming on for pronouncement of orders
this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 praying to quash entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.277/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Afzalfur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are that on 7.4.2015 at about 3.30 p.m., CW.1 and his relative -3- CW.8-Parashuram had been to Afzalpur to purchase slab stones for their newly constructed house on their motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA32/W4126. It is alleged that when they were standing near the stall of slab stones, near Rajadhani Dhaba one Lakshman brought the tractor on hire basis for transporting slab stones. After loading the slab stones, CW.9 Sharanappa was returning to his village on his motorcycle in the meanwhile CWs.1 and 8 were also proceeding on their motorcycle with Lakshman as pillion rider. At about 5.30 p.m., when they were crossing A-one Dhaba, one black colour Tavera vehicle came from opposite direction with high speed and hit the motorcycle of CW.9-Sharanappa, which was witnessed by one CW.1 and Lakshman. They also saw accused No.1 in the said Tavera vehicle. Thereafter, the said Sharanappa due to fear started running towards the motorcycle of CW.1. Once again Tavera vehicle came in a high speed and dashed the motorcycle, due to the said impact, all the -4- three persons who were proceeding in the motorcycle fell into the bush by the side of the road along with the motorcycle. Thereafter Lakshman got up and started running away. At that time, accused No.1 shouted towards inmates of Tavera vehicle not to leave him. Immediately, all the accused persons surrounded the said Lakshman including accused No.1 and thereafter, accused No.1 fired with pistol to the head of Lakshman and after committing the murder of Lakshman, they ran away from the scene of offence in the said Tavera vehicle. The injured-CWs.1 and 8 got up, went to Police Station and filed the complaint. After compleltition of investigation, a split charge sheet came to be filed as against accused Nos.2 to 7 as the petitioner-accused No.1 had absconded. The 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi tried accused Nos.2 to 7 in SC.280/2015 and after trial acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged. Now the -5- petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court for quashing of the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the allegations made against the petitioner and other accused who were acquitted of the offences are similar in nature and are not separable. He has also contended that the Sessions Court on evaluation of the entire material on record, has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 7. In that light, if trial is held against the petitioner-accused No.1, the prosecution cannot produce any better evidence than the one which has been produced by it. It is his further contention that as all the witnesses have turned hostile, if the trial is allowed to be continued against the petitioner herein, it is sheer waste of valuable judicial time. As such, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon various decisions of Apex Court and this Court. -6-
4. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that accused Nos.2 to 7 were tried in SC.No.280/2015. PWs.1, 5 and 6 who are said to be direct eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Other witnesses except official witnesses have also turned hostile. Relying upon such evidence, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7. Looking to the material, it is clear that petitioner being the main accused and other accused persons were present at the time of the alleged incident. Even the complaint and other material disclose that it is the accused No.1-petitioner herein who shot the deceased Lakshman on his head with pistol and at that time accused Nos.2 to 7 have only surrounded the deceased. This aspect clearly indicates that it is the accused No.1 who is the main culprit in so far as the alleged offence is concerned and other accused persons have merely instigated with a common intention to commit the -7- offence by accused No.1. In that light, the allegations made against accused No.1 and other accused persons who are already acquitted differ. In that view of the matter, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein and the remaining accused were similarly placed with inseparable allegations does not hold any water.
5. In this back ground, I have perused the various decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the main accused persons were acquitted and in that light it has been held by the Apex Court and this Court that if trial is held once again, no useful purpose will be served and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against co-accused have been quashed. But, looking to the facts of the case on hand, petitioner is the main accused who has played an active role while committing the heinous offence of murder of the deceased Lakshman. The question as to whether -8- the witnesses will support or not, is a matter which has to be adjudged only if a trial is held. At this stage, it cannot be inferred that the witnesses again would turn hostile. Now the witnesses may come and support the case of prosecution. Evidence has to be appreciated with reference to each of the accused separately. At this juncture, no inference can be drawn about the evidence which is going to be led. In that light, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceptable.
6. Leave apart this, on the facts of the case, I am of the view that petitions of this nature are allowed by exercising the inherent power conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in all the crimes the main accused will remain either absconded or would be behind the curtain by putting forth the remaining accused for trial, he will first test and after seeing the decision against the co-accused, he will decide whether -9- he has to face the trial or not. In that light, he will become the master and will have full control on the case. By this method criminal justice cannot be allowed to over turn by such persons. In other words, it will erode the people's faith in the system. In that light, the basic principles of criminal law itself would be toppled down and in all the criminal cases, the principal offenders will adopt such methods and escape from the clutches of the law, which is against the purport of the law.
In that light and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-