Karnataka High Court
Sanjukumar@Sanju vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201453/2018
BETWEEN:
Sanjukumar @ Sanju S/o Tirumal Belkeri,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Vijay Nagar Colony, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through Women P.S., Kalaburagi
Represented by Addl. SPP,
High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.
2. Smt. Parvati W/o Ravindra Malinkeri,
Age: Major, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Rumangud, Tq. Chincholi,
Now at Ashok Nagar, Govt. Hospital, Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to allow the petition and quash the entire
proceedings pending against the petitioner in
S.C.No.168/2018 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Judge at
Kalaburagi in Cr.No.136/2010 of respondent police for the
offences U/s 498A, 306 R/w 149 of IPC, in the interest of
justice and equity and etc.
2
This petition having been heard on 28.01.2019 and
reserved and coming on for pronouncement of order this day,
delivered the following:
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.168/2018 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Crime No.136/2010 of Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 R/w 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing this petition are as follows:
The respondent No.2 Parvati W/o Ravindra who is mother of deceased Krithika filed a complaint, she has alleged in her complaint that her daughter Krithika was her elder daughter out of her four children and were residing in a rented house belonging to the petitioner at Vijay Nagar Colony, Kalaburagi. Since her daughter had a love affair with the petitioner and on coming to 3 know the same, elders decided to perform her marriage and performed their marriage. They lead happy married life for about six months. Thereafter, the complainant and her family who were residing in the rented house of the petitioner, shifted their house to Ashok Nagar, Kalaburagi. The relatives of the petitioner namely sister of petitioner Pushpa, her husband Narsing and relatives Dattu Police, Kasturbai, Mahadevi Teacher, who were against the marriage of the petitioner with the daughter of the complainant used to come to the house of the petitioner and used to give mental torture and harassment, due to which the petitioner left his own house shifted to another house on rental basis. Thereafter he left the deceased wife and went away and did not return, due to which the deceased daughter of complainant started residing in her parental house. It is further stated that on 10.12.2010 at 9.30 a.m., the relatives of the petitioner by falsely informing that the petitioner had come to home and convinced the 4 daughter of the complainant to come along with them by assuring her that they will look after her well took her and on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant heard the news that her daughter had committed suicide and on going to the place of incident, she presumed that the accused have committed the murder of her daughter, gave the complaint against all the accused and the same was registered in Cr.No.136/2010 of respondent-police station. It is submitted that after investigation it revealed that on 10.12.2010 at 11.30 a.m. the deceased Krithika locked herself in a portion of the rented house and committed suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on her body. Based on the suicide, the charge sheet filed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC was altered to Section 306 of IPC. The petitioner was mentally disturbed due to the incident of losing his loved one, was not arrested by respondent-police on seeing his disturbed mental condition and deep depression. The 5 petitioner started wondering to religious places all across the country along with monks for more than 7 years, he could not be traced out by his relatives and he was presumed to have dead. Very recently in the month of April-2018 when the relatives of the petitioner came to know that the petitioner is alive and wandering like a monk, with the help of police secured the petitioner who was mentally disturbed and produced before the Court. Thereafter, the learned V Addl.
Sessions / Special Judge at Kalaburagi released him on bail in Crl. Misc.No.551/2018 by order dated 28.04.2018.
3. It is further stated that accused No.2 to 6 who were tried for the common allegations of giving harassment to the deceased were acquitted of all the charges, since all the prosecution witnesses completely turned hostile and denied all the suggestions made by the public prosecutor in their cross examination. The 6 copy of the judgment and order acquitting accused No.2 to 6 by learned V Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in S.C.No.267/2015 dated 24.04.2018 is produced herewith. The petitioner due to deep depression and mental disturbance due to the death of his wife left for religious places for more than 7 years and now he is traced out. Accused No.2 to 6 who were against the marriage of the petitioner with deceased Krithika who had given much mental torture and harassment leading to suicide of wife. All the allegations and evidence on record are inseparable in nature and other co-accused already been acquitted by the Sessions Court after complete trial with no witness supporting the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. In the similar circumstances, there are ample number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in which it was held that when evidence on record are inseparable in nature and co-accused already 7 been acquitted, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.168/2018 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi be quashed.
4. Respondent No.2 complainant was served with notice, but un represented.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted relying on various decisions of this Court that accused No.2 to 6 were acquitted after full fledged trial for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC. None of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner-accused No.1 left the rented house and went in search of job and he was mentally dispersed and recently he has been traced 8 out, he is also enlarged on bail. The evidence in the original case recorded before the Court is inseparable and the allegations were common against all the accused including in the petitioner herein. Therefore, when the accused No.2 to 6 have been already acquitted on the basis of the evidence produced before the Court, the petitioner may be extended the benefit of the acquittal in the main case. There cannot be change in the quality of the evidence from one produced in the previous case.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the evidence of PW1 in the case is against accused No.1. Therefore, the accused No.1 petitioner herein is not entitled to get the proceedings quashed.
8. It is admitted that the proceedings in S.C.No.267/15 were initiated against the accused No.1 to 6 and the present petitioner was shown as accused 9 No.1 since he was not available for trial the case against him was split up and subsequently S.C.No.168/2018 is registered against the petitioner-accused No.1. The judgment in S.C.No.267/2015 goes to show that the evidence produced by the prosecution is common against all the accused. The complainant Smt. Paravati the mother of the deceased was examined in the said case as PW1, she being a circumstantial and heresy witness, she has not stated anything about the alleged incident. PW2-Jagannath is witness to the spot panchanama. PW3 - Sachin is younger brother of deceased and he is also hearsay witness. PW4-Raju is the brother-in-law of deceased and hearsay witness to the incident. Similarly, PW5-Ravindra is the father of deceased and hearsay witness to the incident. PW6- Nilambika is also hearsay witness. PW7-Baburao is another witness for the spot panchanama. PW8- Dasharath he is another hearsay witness. PW9- Yashwanth, Head Constable forwarded the dead body of 10 deceased to the Government Hospital. PW10- Akkamahadevi, PSI has conducted the part of the investigation and PW11-Sharanabasaveshwar, Police Inspector had conducted remaining part of the investigation and filed charge sheet. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciating the entire material placed on record has held that none of the prosecution witnesses including the very parents of the deceased Shrutika have supported the prosecution except the police officials and police officers, whose evidence is not sufficient to prove the alleged offence against the accused. He has further observed that absolutely, there is no cogent and clinching evidence so as to convict accused for the charges levelled against them. Therefore, he held that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A and 306 R/w 149 of IPC.
11
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein submitted that the evidence produced in the said case is inseparable from the evidence to be produced against the petitioner. Since the other accused have been acquitted on the basis of the said evidence, the petitioner is also entitled for acquittal as the evidence is inseparable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "Once main accused discharged, single Judge of High Court justified in holding that no purpose to be served in further proceeding with case against respondent." Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed against the said accused under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Iranna 12 Sidramappa Chimman V/s The State through Aland Police Station in Criminal Petition No.200791/2018 dated 20.08.2018. this Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred Supra and also the decision in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer v. State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police (2002 (1) KCCR 1) and held that "the Court has to apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations made against the accused persons who are already acquitted and the present petitioner are one and the same and the allegations are inseparable and indivisible in nature. If the factual aspects and the evidence has already been appreciated by the trial Court and acquitted the other co-accused persons and the said judgment has logically concluded, in such an eventuality, the Court can extend the benefit of acquittal even to the absconding accused persons, against whom a split up charge-sheet has been filed." Similarly this Court in the case of Ramanna V/s The 13 State through Manna-Ekhelli P.S. in Criminal Petition No.200021/2015 by order dated 25.03.2015 relying on the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh stated supra, observed in para No.18 as follows.
"The Trial Court has come to a definite conclusion that the accused persons who have faced the trial along with the absconding accused have near committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. When such being the case, even in the absence of the absconding accused, his innocence has been examined by way of the evidence led by the prosecution as found by the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, there should not be any further trial so far as this petitioner is concerned. Otherwise, it would amounts to abuse of process of the Court."
11. In that case this Court held that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC and accordingly it was allowed, the accused was discharged and all further 14 proceedings were quashed. This Court has taken the consistent view in other cases namely in the case of Hassan @ Mohammed Hassan V/s The State of Karnataka by Police Sub-Inspector in W.P.No.55102/2017 decided on 14.12.2017 and in the case of Iqbal V/s State of Karnataka By Women Police Station, Mangaluru in Criminal Petition No.4485/2017 decided on 14.11.2017 and further in the case of Pradeep V/s The State of Karnataka by PSI, Almel PS in Criminal Revision Petition No.200005/2015 decided on 21.01.2015. In all these case, this Court has consistently held that the prosecution proposed to lead evidence of same witnesses against the present petitioner have all turned hostile to the prosecution, it can not be accepted that the prosecution would get better evidence then one already lead against other accused persons. Therefore, the allegations made against the accused particularly accused who have been already acquitted are 15 inseparable compared to the allegations made against the present petitioner. Further the charges framed by the trial Court is also inclusive of the allegations made against the petitioner. The trial Court if at all had tried this petitioner along with other accused persons definitely would have ended in acquittal along with other accused persons. Hence such being the situation its opined that the trial Court has committed a serious error in not discharging the accused persons.
12. In the case of Sri Khalid V/s State of Karnataka, reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 1713, this Court has held that "Where one accused was acquitted, subsequently in a separate trial on the same evidence, co-accused cannot be convicted. No useful purpose would be served if the case is proceeded against the co- accused". Therefore, the proceedings against the accused is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.PC in the interest of justice. Similarly in the case of Velu @ Kaduvelu V/s State of Karnataka and others, 16 reported in 2014 Cr.R. 770 (Kant.), this Court has held that "when the allegations, evidence on record are in separable in nature and other co-accused have already acquitted, merely because this present petitioner has absconded himself for the trial, at a particular stage of recording his statement, cannot be a ground to reject the prayer sought in this petition. When the evidence on record and the judgment of the Trial Court clearly discloses that the accused Nos.1 to 6 are actually entitled for acquittal, because of the absence of A1, the Trial Court was prevented from recording the judgment of acquittal against A1, otherwise he would also been acquitted by the Trial Court itself. There is no chance of conviction of the present petitioner even if he is secured and his statement is recorded. In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to reject the prayer sought in this case". This Court has again relied on the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh stated supra and the proceedings against the petitioner 17 in the said case were quashed. In view of the above referred decisions, it is crystal clear that the evidence produced by the prosecution in SC No.267/2015 against the accused No.2 to 6 is inseparable from the evidence to be produced against the present petitioner who did not face trial in the said case. The evidence recorded in the said case and the evidence to be recorded against the petitioner in case, he face the trial would not be sufficient to record conviction against the petitioner. Therefore in all probability, the petitioner- accused would be acquitted in the case even after recording the same evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the factual aspects and the evidence had already been appreciated by the trial Court and has acquitted co-accused persons and the judgment has logically concluded in a such eventuality, this Court can extend the benefit of acquittal even to the petitioner who was absconding during the trial in S.C.No.267/2015. It is not the case of the prosecution that the judgment in SC 18 No.267/2015 has not reached logical conclusion. It is not the case of the prosecution that the state or the complaint have preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in SC No.267/2015. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in SC No.168/2018 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following...
ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.168/2018 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Crime No.136/2010 of Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 R/w 149 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP