Karnataka High Court
Abdul Wahab vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 6548/2017
BETWEEN
ABDUL WAHAB,
S/O MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 2/31, VIDYANAGAR,
KULAI VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 575211
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. LATHIF B., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION,
REP BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.123/2017 (CR.NO.30/2014) OF
SURATHKAL P.S., D.K., DISTRICT, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA
1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in SC No.27/2015 which was arising out of Crime No.30/2014 registered by Suratkal Police against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under section 120B, 448, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. As this petitioner was not available and he was absconding, case was split up against him and other accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 were tried by the trial Court in SC No.27/2015 after the committal proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations made against this petitioner and the other acquitted co-accused persons are one and the same and they are indivisible and inseparable in nature. Therefore, no purpose would be served if the petitioner is tried once again on the same allegations and on the same evidence proposed by the prosecution. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, the judgment of 3 acquittal is equally to be extended in favour of the petitioner.
4. I have carefully perused the judgment passed in SC No.27/2015, wherein the allegations made against the accused persons including this petitioner is that a person by name Sudarshan lodged a complaint on 27.1.2014 stating that on that day at about 9.00 a.m., when the complainant was in the office i.e., at Madhava Marbles and Granites along with one Deeraj, a bike repairer at about 12.15 in the afternoon., two persons came near the shop and asked them to show the sample and when the complainant approached them for seeing the marbles, one person held the back of the complainant and assaulted the complainant's head by the iron water pipe and the other accused persons also assaulted the complainant with iron rod etc., On the basis of the said report, the police have investigated and found Accused Nos.1 to 5 are the culprits. After committal proceedings, the court has framed charges against them. The charges framed clearly discloses that the trial Court has framed charges against accused 4 Nos.1, 3 to 5, in such a manner that Accused No.2 was also involved and all the accused persons hatched a plan to assault CW-1, Sudarshan who helped Hindu youths to assault Muslim youths etc., The trial Court has examined as many as 19 witnesses PWs.1 to 19 and marked Exs.P1 to P45 and also MOs.1 to 11. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons i.e., A1, A3 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, recording the judgment u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court has acquitted Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5.
5. As could be seen from the entire materials on record, it is clearly established that the allegations made against Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Sessions Case No.27/2015 are one and the same and they are indivisible and inseparable in nature.
6. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION 5 NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA], AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and 2002(1) KCCR 1 [MUNEER AHMED QURESHI, MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in order to ascertain whether this court can quash the proceedings against the co-accused, when the other accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017 dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in (2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822 [THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C. NARASEGOWDA]. Therefore, before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein, it was held that:
6
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when an accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co-accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused held proper."
7. In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi's case (supra), this Court has held that: -
"Entire case of the prosecution as
against six accused is practically
inseparable and individual one and
especially when the Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any other material other than what is already produced and considered by Trial Court. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted. 7
Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed."
8. In view of the above said decision and also the factual aspects of this particular case, I am of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal is equally extended so far as the petitioner is concerned who was arrayed as A2 in SC No.27/2015. No purpose would be served if this petitioner is tried once again on the same allegations proposed evidence on the prosecution side. Therefore, a split up charge sheet registered against the petitioner and consequential registration of a Sessions Case No.123/2017 deserves to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. All further proceedings in SC No.123/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 323, 326, 307, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is hereby quashed.8
In view of disposal of this case, pending consideration of IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA No.1/2017 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*