Karnataka High Court
Umar Shafi @ Maril Shafi vs The State Through on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771
CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025
CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201568 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200265 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200853 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P.NO.201568/2025:
Digitally signed BETWEEN:
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH 1. UMAR SHAFI @ MARIL SHAFI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O ADAM,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: INTERIOR DESIGNER,
R/O MAREEL HOUSE,
SANJAYANA NAGAR,
KEMMANJI, PUTTUR,
MANGALURU-574201.
2. SAMAD @ CHAMMU KYALIKATT SAMAD
S/O SULAIMAN,
AGE: 28 YEARS (AS PER LCO)
OCC: INTERIOR DESIGNER,
R/O MAREEL HOUSE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771
CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025
CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025
HC-KAR
SANJAYANA NAGAR,
KEMMANJI PUTTUR, MANGALURU-574201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH NELOGI PSI
JEWARGI, KALABURAGI
REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585107.
2. ABDUL KHADAR S/O P.A.MAIDHU,
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O CHEMBARIKA, CHANDRAGIRI
KALANDU TALUK, KASARGUD
DIST. KERALA-671371.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
V/O DATED 24.10.2025 NOTICE TO R2 DEFERRED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO THE PETITIONERS - UMAR SHAFI AND SAMAD -
WHO ARE ARRAINGED AS ACCUSED NO.16 AND 19 IN SC
NO.104/2024 REGISTERED BY THE NELOGI POLICE STATION
TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI AND CHARGED WITH
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 109, 395,
364, 302, 201, 303, 465, 473 OF THE IPC PENDING BEFORE
THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI MOST
RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT. A)
QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.18/2020 DATED
04.05.2025 B) TO TERMINATE ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
SC NO.104/2024 EMANATING FROM THE CHARGE- SHEET /
FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.18/2020.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771
CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025
CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P.NO.200265/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SHAFI CHEMBIRIKAYIL
S/O, ABDUL KADER CHEMBIRIKAYIL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT CHAPPA HOUSE, CHEMBIRIKA,
KALNAD, CHANDRAGIRI,
KASARAGOD, KERALA- 671317
2. ISUBU ZEEYAD A
S/O, BIDWANA @ BADUVAN KUNNI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT AMBIKAN HOUSE, AMBIKANA, PAIVALIKE,
KASARAGOD, KERALA-671348
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION,
NELOGI POLICE STATION, KALABURGI,
REP BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. ABDUL KHADAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O P.A.MAITHU
R/AT- CHEMBARIKA, CHANDRAGIRI,
KALANADU TALUK,
KASARGOD DISTRICT
KERALA-671317.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771
CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025
CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN S.C NO.206/2024 (CRIME NO.18/2020)
REGISTERED BY THE NELOGI POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395. 109, 120(B),
364, 302, 201, 303, 465, 473, OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI.
IN CRL.P.NO.200853/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SOHAIL @ HUSSAINABBA @ HUSSEIN @ USTAD
S/O ABDUL REHMAN,
AGE: 35 YEARS (AS PER LCO),
OCC; BUSINESS,
R/O. KAREBALE HOUSE,
GRAM SIDDAKATTE,
TQ. BANTWAL,
DIST. DAKSHIN KANNADA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH NELOGI PSI,
JEWARGI, KALABURAGI,
REP BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585 107.
2. ABDUL KHADAR
S/O P.A. MAITHU,
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O CHEMBARIKA,
CHANDRAGIRI,
KALANDU TALUKA,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771
CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025
CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025
HC-KAR
KASARGODU DISTRICT,
KERALA-671371.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
THE PETITIONER SOHAIL @ HUSSAINABBA USTAD WHO IS
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.5 IN CRIME NO.18/2020
REGISTERED BY THE JEWARGI POLICE STATION, TQ JEWARGI
DIST KALABURAGI AND CHARGED WITH OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 109, 395, 364, 302,
201, 303, 465, 473 OF THE IPC PENDING BEFORE THE PRL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE KALABURAGI IN SC
NO.94/2024 MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAYS THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO A) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.18/2020 OF NELOGI P.S JEWARGI DATED 4.05.2025. B) TO
QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.94/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE KALABURAGI,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In all these three petitions, the accused are seeking quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.104/2024, S.C.No.206/2024 and S.C.No.94/2024 by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court in -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR S.C.No.159/2021 thereby acquitting accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 395, 363, 302, 201, 465 and 473 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:
The present petitioners in these three petitions, along with other co-accused, were subjected to criminal prosecution alleging that, owing to prior animosity between accused No.2 and deceased Taslim, on 31.01.2020 at about 4:30 p.m. on SH-155 at Belur Village, accused Nos.6 to 12, in furtherance of their common object and armed with deadly weapons, arrived in two Brezza cars, formed an unlawful assembly, threatened and kidnapped the deceased, and committed dacoity of the vehicle. It is further alleged that, at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4, accused Nos.13 and 14 received supari, hatched a conspiracy to commit the offence, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR 120B and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Consequently, all accused were charged with offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. As the present petitioners were absconding, a split charge sheet was filed against them. The remaining accused, namely accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21, were tried, and upon conclusion of full-fledged trial, the Sessions Judge, exercising power under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., acquitted them of offences under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 395, 363, 302, 201, 465 and 473 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. In the backdrop of the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.159/2021, the present petitions are filed on the premise that the principal accused have already been acquitted of the very offences, and that the prosecution case against the petitioners is inseparable from that of the acquitted co-accused. It is contended that the only allegation against these petitioners pertains to the alleged criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR and that, in view of the categorical findings recorded by the Sessions Judge, the petitioners who stand on the same footing as the acquitted accused are entitled to similar relief by exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Both learned counsel for the petitioners, adopting identical arguments, have drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant findings of the Sessions Judge while acquitting the co-accused. Particular emphasis is placed on paragraphs 43 to 46 of the judgment to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the allegations and overt acts attributed to these petitioners limited to the allegation of conspiracy are indistinguishable from those levelled against the acquitted accused, and the evidence adduced in the case is inseparable and indivisible. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of acquittal. It -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR is further argued that, even if the prosecution is permitted to proceed, the likelihood of conviction is extremely remote, and subjecting the petitioners to a prolonged criminal trial would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.159/2021 has not been challenged by the State and has attained finality, and consequently continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is unwarranted.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP, while not disputing the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.159/2021, contends that the petitioners were absconding, resulting in the filing of a split charge sheet, and that they must face trial independently. It is argued that, in view of the grave nature of allegations, including the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the co-accused have been acquitted.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all three petitions and the learned HCGP for the State, this Court considers it necessary, before proceeding further, to examine the crucial findings recorded by the Sessions Judge while acquitting the co-accused. Paragraphs 28 to 46 of the judgment are therefore relevant and are required to be extracted for proper consideration.
"28. Similarly in his further cross-examination by the learned PP at para-13 and 14 when a suggestion was put to the witness in respect of phone call dated 01.02.2020 made by accused No.1 as well as alleged incident dated 02.02.2020 that as per information given by accused No.6. 7 and 14, accused No.5 to 7, 9, 10, 12 and 21 have kidnapped the deceased Taslim for ransom and handed over to accused No.17 and then came to know that his brother has been murdered for that he has given police supplementary before the CCB statement Mangaluru, but PW.14 has specifically denied the same as false. So this material evidence of PW.14 -complainant itself demolishes entire case of the prosecution.
29. So also, during the course of cross-examination by the learned defence counsel also PW.14 admits that about 3 to 4 criminal cases came to be registered against
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR his brother for illegal liquor business and pleads ignorance about his presence during TIP by the Tahasildar Kalaburagi. In his further cross-examination though states that the alleged incident has taken place within 3-4 minutes and can identify accused No.6 -Irfan and one Yasmin, but he pleads ignorance as to accused No. 17 has committed murder of deceased Taslim. The process of TIP also not proved by the prosecution by examining CW.55 then Tahasildar Jewargi, as such his report has no evidentiary value. This is also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. In his further cross-examination the suggestions made and denied by the witness.
30. Coming to the evidence of PW.29-Yasmin who is none else wife of deceased Mutaslim states that CW.1 and 32 are her in-laws, her deceased husband was doing liquor business in Dubai, he returned back but was not doing anything. Further though states that accused No.1 was threatening, but she has turned against her statement as well as supplementary statement made before the police.
31. In her cross-examination by the learned PP except the fact that CW.1. 27 and 30 were accompanied with her husband while returning to native place from Kalaburagi prison, she has specifically denied the suggestion that at that time about 6-7members kidnapped her husband as stated by CW. 1. Further when a suggestion was put to the witness by the learned PP based on Ex.P.80 statement and Ex.P.81 supplementary
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR statement, she has specifically denied the same, which is also materially affects the case of the prosecution.
32. So also, PW.30 who is none other than mother of deceased states that earlier her son was working at Mumbai and then went to Dubai. but she does not know what was doing there and police have not enquired her about the incident, she states that accused No.1 murdered her son through others.
33. In her cross-examination by the learned PP except the fact that CW.1, 27 and 30 were accompanied with her son while returning to native place from Kalaburagi prison. nothing has been supported to believe the case of the prosecution as stated in Ex.P.82 and 83 statement and supplementary statement of the said witness, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
34. PW.31- Wasim one of the relatives of the deceased who said to have received the dead body of Taslim after examination of PME also turned against the statement and supplementary statement made before the police as per Ex.P.84 and 85, except the fact that though he heard that accused No.1 murdered Taslim through accused No.4, but say he did not know reason behind the crime and nothing has been supported in his cross- examination by the learned PP. which is contrary to the case of the prosecution.
35. Coming to the evidence of PW.38 the then Junior Engineer of PWD Sub Division Jewargi he deposed that as per requisition received from the police, he visited
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR the spot on 21.03.2020 shown by CW.57 CPC-859 of Jewargi Police Station and he prepared spot sketch as per Ex.P.95. In his cross-examination it has been elicited that though he prepared rough sketch on the spot, but he has prepared Ex.P.95 in the office itself. So evidence of Pw.38 also not worthy of credence.
36. PW.28 Ranganath then PC-2367 of Bantwal city PS Mangaluru has deposed that on 02.02.2020 in the evening dead body of Taslim was being shifted from the open place of Shanti Nagar to Venlock hospital and one Kashinath police of Nelogi police accompanied him to the hospital. In his cross-examination only suggestions made and denied by the witness.
37. With regard to last seen theory is concern, generally the last seen theory comes into play when there will be time gap between accused and deceased were seen last alive and when deceased found dead. It is settled that when role of the accused persons is not firmly established then it is not appropriate to convict the accused persons.
38. So the conduct of accused persons and the fact of last seen together plus other circumstances have to be looked into. Coming to the version of PW.22 to 25 who said to have last seen the deceased along with accused No.6 to 12 at Bellur have also turned against their statements made before the police and not supported the case of the prosecution. So in this context it is not
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR obligatory on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased and accused persons parted company.
39. It may be noted that Section 8 of the Indian evidence Act deals with relevance of motive in criminal trial. With regard to relevancy of motive is concern it is well settled that motive is not an ingredient of the offence and it is only a reason which prompts intention. It may be noted that so far as in respect of the fact that deceased and accused No.2 who said to have done illegal business in abroad and while doing so accused No.2 had animosity with the deceased who said to have caused loss of 4.00 crores and informed about his illegal activities with the concerned police. But in this regard except version of hearsay witnesses absolutely there is no evidence on record.
40. As discussed supra in this connection in the cross-examination of PW.14 by the learned PP though admits that there was enmity between deceased brother in respect of their illegal business at Dubai and UAE and also admits that accused No.1 to 3 were threatening his brother in connection with Khaliya Rafiq murder case and conspiracy to eliminate his brother with the help of people of accused No.1. but when a specific suggestion was put to the witness that as per say of accused No. 15, accused No. 19 at the instance of accused No.1 to 4 planned to kidnap his brother through accused No.5 to 7 and hand over him to the people of accused No. 1. he denied as
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR false. As such the motive is also not established by the prosecution.
41. With regard to alleged conspiracy is concern PW.27 and 32 who are the material witnesses heard about conspiracy of alleged murder while sharing thoughts amongst accused No.2 and 4 also turned hostile.
42. Then, voluntary statements of the accused No.6. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 is concerned, the essential ingredient of Section 27 of Evidence Act is that, the information given by the accused must lead to be discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information and only such portion of information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused. So, now it is clear that the discovery of fact must relate to the commission of some offence. In this regard, the last few lines of voluntary statements of and recovery of material objects, but the aforesaid confessional statements of accused have not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law and as rightly argued by the defence counsel voluntary statements of accused are hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Evidence Act.
43. It is worth to note that admittedly none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. though during the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. through VC nothing worth has been explained, but when the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing the prima facie
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt then Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act being an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act does not attract.
44. Admittedly the prosecution has failed to secure and examine remaining material witnesses like Scientific, Medical, Official witnesses and IOs who also did not come forward to give evidence before the court. So non examination of these material witnesses is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the material on record do not suggests that all the accused have hatched a plan and committed the murder of deceased Taslim. Further there is no specific evidence on record as to which of the accused has committed specific offence.
45. In the case on hand there are material contradictions in the evidence of witness and there are omissions and irregularities in the investigation. For these reasons it can be held that the circumstantial evidence thereupon reliance has been placed by prosecution cannot be said to have formed a complete link in the chain to arrive at the guilt of the accused, as such in the absence of other corroborative evidence it is not safe to rely upon evidence of hearsay witnesses only for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that accused have pre-planned then intentionally kidnapped and committed murder of deceased Taslim.
46. In these circumstances, it can be held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR positive evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. For the aforesaid reasons arguments advanced by the learned PP is liable to be rejected. On the other hand arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused holds good. Consequently. accused No.6. 7. 10 to 15, 20 and 21 are entitled for acquittal of the aforesaid offence. Hence, I answer Point Nos-1 to 4 are in the Negative."
7. On a careful reading of the detailed observations made by the learned Sessions Judge which formed the basis for acquittal of the co-accused, it becomes abundantly clear that the allegations against the present petitioners stand on the same footing as those levelled against the acquitted accused. Insofar as accused Nos.16 and 19 in Criminal Petition No.201568/2025 are concerned, the only allegation pertains to their alleged role in hatching a criminal conspiracy. Likewise, in Criminal Petition No.200265/2025 arising out of S.C.No.206/2024, the allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 relate to an alleged animosity harboured by accused No.2 who was residing in the United Arab Emirates towards CW.27, as
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR well as the alleged act of engaging accused Nos.13 and 14 to kidnap and murder the deceased. These allegations are wholly interwoven with the broader prosecution theory which has already been disbelieved in its entirety by the Sessions Court.
8. The extracted findings from paragraphs 28 to 46 of the Sessions Court judgment disclose several crucial deficiencies which directly impact the sustainability of the prosecution against the present petitioners. The Sessions Judge has categorically noted that the principal witnesses, namely PW.22 to PW.25, who allegedly last saw the deceased in the company of accused Nos.6 to 12 at Belur, have turned completely hostile. Further, the Sessions Judge, while analysing the cross-examination of PW.14, the complainant, has highlighted that this witness specifically denied the core allegation that the deceased was kidnapped at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4. The Sessions Judge has also adverted to the voluntary statements of accused Nos.6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR 21 and has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the alleged recoveries are not proved in accordance with law. In addition, the Sessions Court has identified material contradictions, omissions, and serious lapses in the investigation, ultimately holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not form a complete and unbroken link pointing to the guilt of the accused. On this overall assessment, the co-accused, namely accused Nos.6, 7, 10 to 15, 20 and 21, were acquitted of all charges under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 395, 363, 302, 201, 465 and 473 read with Section 149 of IPC.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Akhilesh Singh (AIR 2005 SC 268) as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Muneer Ahmed Qureshi @ Gaun Muneer v. State of Karnataka [2002 (1) KCCR 1]. The principles laid down
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR therein, particularly that where the evidence against co- accused is inseparable and indivisible and the main accused have been acquitted on merits, continuation of proceedings against the absconding accused would be an abuse of process squarely apply to the present case. Here, the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The most crucial circumstance, namely the "last seen" theory, has collapsed in view of key witnesses turning hostile. Once the substratum of the prosecution case has been completely dislodged by the findings in S.C. No.159/2021, this Court is of the considered view that the present petitioners, who face allegations of identical and inseparable nature, cannot be compelled to undergo a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, all three petitions deserve to be allowed and the proceedings pending against accused Nos.16 and 19, accused Nos.2 and 3, and accused No.5 are liable to be quashed.
10. As already discussed, even if the three sessions cases were to be independently prosecuted, the likelihood
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR of conviction of the petitioners is extremely remote. In fact, in light of the categorical findings recorded by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.159/2021, the possibility of conviction is virtually non-existent. Subjecting the petitioners to a prolonged criminal trial in such circumstances would amount to permitting an abuse of the judicial process, which this Court cannot countenance. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings is wholly unwarranted and liable to be quashed.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petitions are hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.104/2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, S.C. No.206/2024 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, and S.C. No.94/2024 on the file of the III Additional
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6771 CRL.P No. 201568 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 200265 of 2025 CRL.P No. 200853 of 2025 HC-KAR District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.18/2020, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 395, 364, 302, 201, 303, 465 and 473 IPC, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23 CT:SI