Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Rohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44225
CRL.P No. 9378 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9378 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU @ ROHAN
S/O VASANTHA KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HASSAN CITY POLICE
RESPONDENT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. LOKESH M J
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Digitally signed by B
K
S/O JAVAREGOWDA M.R,
MAHENDRAKUMAR R/O MARAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DODDABEMMATHI POST,
KARNATAKA
MALLIPATNA HOBLI,
ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATE 27.12.2022 IN S.C.NO.54/2020 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF
CR.P.C. BY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONERS FROM THE ABOVE CASE
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 202 R/W 34 OF IPC OF HASSAN CITY
POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44225
CRL.P No. 9378 of 2023
REVISION PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S DEEM FIT
TO GRANT TO THE PETITIONERS, UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused Nos.1 to 4 have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 202 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, who had animosity since the properties were given in favour of the second wife, conspired with the accused Nos.2 to 4, and gave supari of Rs.10 lakh to commit murder of her husband, and the accused Nos.3 and 4 by destroying the DVR and CCTV footages, and the accused Nos.2 to 4 by illegally trespassing into the house committed murder of the deceased. The accused No.1, who was apprehended during the course of investigation, in her confession statement, has categorically stated that, the petitioner at one point of time was contacted for doing away with the life of her husband. However, the petitioner did not execute the crime, and the petitioner by not disclosing the said incident has committed the offence under Sections 202, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused No.1. Hence, in the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:44225 CRL.P No. 9378 of 2023 absence of any corroborative material to establish that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. She further submits that the allegation that the petitioner did not disclose the intention of the accused to commit the murder of her husband does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 202 of IPC.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet material discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences alleged against him. Therefore, the veracity of the allegation can be considered only at the time of trial, and the same cannot be gone into in this petition.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner had filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.PC for discharge. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application stating that, the accused No.1 in her confession statement admitted that, the petitioner conspired to do away with the life and the petitioner had purchased the car from the money given by the accused No.1. The charge sheet does not contain any material to substantiate that, the petitioner purchased the car from the money given by the accused No.1. The petitioner has taken a plea in the petition that the car was purchased by borrowing loan from the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:44225 CRL.P No. 9378 of 2023 Bank. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of the accused No.1.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v Danu ( AIR 2000 SC 169) has reiterated that confession of a co-accused is not evidence against other accused and is inadmissible in law as stated under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
8. Section 202 of IPC states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information relating to that that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioner, fully knowing that the accused Nos.1 to 4 had committed the murder of the husband of the accused No.1, has not furnished the information to the police, except that at one point of time the Petitioner was contacted by Accused No.1 to do away with the life of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the offence punishable under Section 202 of IPC, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.
9. Section 120B of IPC deals with punishment for criminal conspiracy. To constitute the commission of offence of abetment one must demonstrate clear and proximate action between the alleged abetment and commission of offence in -5- NC: 2023:KHC:44225 CRL.P No. 9378 of 2023 question. There must be direct or indirect evidence to establish the abetment of the offence alleged. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate that the petitioner conspired with other accused to do away with the life of the husband of the accused No.1, the prosecution of the Petitioner for offence under Section 120-B will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 27.12.2022 in SC No.54/2020 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC is hereby quashed and the application is allowed and the petitioner - accused No.6 is acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM