Karnataka High Court
Abdul Rahiman vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
W.P. NO.41793/2017
BETWEEN
ABDUL RAHIMAN,
S/O LATE MOHAMME,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A SAMPYA HOUSE,
ARYAPUGRAMA DK,
PUTTUR TALUK-574 219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY VITTAL POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DIST - 574 243
REP. BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SC 49/2017
ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE 399 AND 120-B OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE CHARGSHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONER
AT ANNEXURE-A.
2
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON I.A.
NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-Abdul Rehaman, originally arraigned as Accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.42/2015. Accused No.2-Abdul Rehaman (the petitioner herein) and Accused No.3-Purandara Naika, were earlier split-up from the array of original proceedings. However, Accused No.3 was later secured and a Sessions Case has been registered against him in S.C. No.113/2016. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 120(B) of IPC and those accused were acquitted of the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 27.07.2017, in SC 42/2015 and 113 / 2016.
2. Petitioner's counsel submits that the allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused are one and the same, and they are inseparable in nature. The prosecution proposed to lead evidence against the petitioner is same as that of the 3 evidence already led by the prosecution to prove the offences alleged against Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5. Therefore, when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the other co-accused are entitled for the acquittal, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, the same benefit has to be extended to this petitioner also.
3. Learned HCGP submits before this Court that, the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court in S.C. Nos.42/2015 and 113/2016.
4. Before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer a decision of this reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, wherein, it was held that:
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when in 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 4 be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused held proper."
5. In another decision reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi , Muneer @ Gaun 13 Muneer V/s State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police, wherein 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. Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed."
6. In view of the above said two decisions, if the court is of the opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner and other accused are similar in 5 nature and they are inseparable in nature and they are intrinsically not distinct, then the same benefit has to be extended to the absconding accused or split-up accused also.
7. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the police have filed charge sheet against the accused persons on the allegations that on 14.10.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., a person by name Raghavendra T.R., the Police Sub-Inspector of Vitla Police Station, along with his staff members was on patrolling duty and he has apprehended in all five accused with Maruti Omni car bearing Registration No. KA-12-Z-1845 at Kallangal Kepu Village of Bantwal Taluk. It is alleged that the accused persons were gathered there with deadly weapons with common intention to commit dacoity and in connection with the same, investigation has been done, charge sheet has been filed. On perusal of the factual aspects, the allegations made against all the five accused are one and the same.
6
8. The trial Court has also formulated points for consideration, which read as under:
i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 14.10.2014 at about 5.00 a.m., at Kallangala of Kepu Village of Bantwal Taluk, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 along with absconding Accused No.2 waiting in the Omni Maruti Car bearing Reg. No.KA-12-Z-1845 by the side of the road, hatched a plan for criminal conspiracy and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 129(B) of Indian Penal Code?
ii) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable on the above said date, Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, & 5 along with absconding Accused No.2 were gathered there will deadly weapons with an intention to commit decoity and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 399 r/w. 149 of IPC?
9. On perusal of the above said points, the court has also treated the allegations as one and the same against all the accused persons. The prosecution has led evidence and examined six 7 witnesses viz.., PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.20 and material objects - Mos. 1 to 17. After appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the court has disbelieved the version of the prosecution and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the other accused persons.
10. On careful perusal of the above said materials on record, it is crystal clear that the allegations are one and the same against all the accused. The prosecution has already led the evidence and the same has been considered by the trial Court. The prosecution proposed to lead evidence again, is on the same points, against the petitioner herein.
11. Under the above said circumstances, no purpose would be served, if the petitioner is ordered to be tried on the same allegations, it is just nothing but waste of judicious time.
8
12. In the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. All further proceedings in SC No.49/2017 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 120(B) of IPC, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of this petition, Application -
IA No.1/2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*