Karnataka High Court
Santhosh Kumar @ Santhosh S/O Srinivasa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2014
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 of 2013
BETWEEN
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ SANTHOSH
S/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SIRA RAOD
TUMKUR CIYT 572 101
2. SUDHAKARA @ ABBAIAH S/O VENKATARAMU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS
VINAYAKA EXTENSION
CHIKKABIDARAKALLU
BANGALORE 560073
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADV. )
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ARSIKERE TOWN POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE 560 001
2
2. NIRANJANA C S
S/O C L SHIVANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ELECTRICIAN
RESIDING AT EDIGARA COLONY
1ST CROSS
LAKSHMIPURA
ARSIKERE TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 103
...
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, GP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE CJ.(SR.DN.) & ADDL. CJM AT ARSIKERE
ON THE ACCUSATION OF HAVING COMMITTED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos. 8 and 9 in Crime No. 158/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. Since the petitioners were absconding, split charge sheet was 3 filed against accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C. No. 172.2008 and the same ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 21st October, 2009. On tracing the present petitioners the respondent police arrested them and they are in judicial custody. Further the police have filed split charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C. No. 55/2009. At this stage, petitioners are before this Court seeking the benefit of acquittal of accused No.1 to 7 in S.C. No.172/2008.
2. The prosecution is relying on the same evidence against the petitioners which they have relied on against accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C. No.172/2008. It is not shown to me as to what is the additional evidence that the prosecution is relying on against these petitioners. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak vs State of W.B. (2007) 15 SCC 305 held as under:
"A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in 4 addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended."
For the reasons state above, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed;
ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.55/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Arsikere in so far as the petitioners-accused No.8 and 9 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
iii) Petitioners are to be released forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-