Karnataka High Court
Iranna vs The State Through on 20 August, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200791/2018
Between:
Iranna
S/o Sidramappa Chimman
Age: 62 years, Occ: Nil
R/o Tadakal, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 302
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi K. Anoor, Advocate for
Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, Advocate)
And:
The State through
Aland Police Station
Dist. Kalaburagi
Now represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
At Kalaburagi Bench - 585 107
... Respondent
(By Sri Maqbool Ahmed, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to exercise the inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., examine the records and quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.406/2002, for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 336, 307 and 504
read with Section 149 of IPC (Crime No.263/99 of Aland
2
P.S.), pending before the Court of Principal JMFC at Aland
against the petitioner.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.11 in S.C.No.234/2002, which was registered originally against 15 accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 336, 307 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3 The above said case was registered on the factual matrix that, on 06.09.1999 at about 11.45 p.m. near the house of one Baswaraj Pavadshetty of Tadkal village, all the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause destruction, assault, insult 3 and to commit the murder of CW.1 - Shantappa, CW.2 - Sharanabasappa, CW.3 - Gangadhar and CW.4 - Baswaraj. In continuation of their object and unlawful assembly, all the accused persons have wrongfully restrained CW.4 - Baswaraj from proceeding further and voluntarily caused hurt to CWs.1 to 4 with the help of knife and stones and also threw stones towards CWs.1 to 4 which endanger human life and personal safety of others and assaulted CW.1 Shantappa by knife. Thereby, they have assaulted CWs.1 to 4, abused them with filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences etc. On the basis of the said factual aspects, the respondent-police have laid a charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 15.
4. It appears, accused No.11 was not available for the trial and he was split up and subsequently a split up charge-sheet has been filed against him in C.C. No.406/2002.
4
5. Be that as it may. The other accused Nos.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 were tried by the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court VI at Gulbarga in S.C. No.234/2002 and the learned District Judge has acquitted those accused persons for want of sufficient evidence and also holding that, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. In order to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 10 and 12 to 15, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4, and Exs.D1 to D6 are the portions of the statements of PWs.4 to 7 and M.Os.I to VI were also marked.
7. On analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned District Judge has opined that, the prosecution has not proved the case against the said accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, granting benefit of doubt in favour of 5 the accused, accused Nos.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 were acquitted.
8. The split up accused No.11, who is the petitioner in this case has approached this Court for quashing of the split up charge-sheet registered against him as noted above.
9. It is worth to refer here a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 between Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh and the decision of this Court reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 between Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer Vs. State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police.
10. In Akhilesh Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court has observed that:
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused, when main accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive 6 to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused held proper."
11. 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 indivisible one and especially when the judgment of acquittal is passed, when PW.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any other material other than what has already produced and considered by the 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 accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge 7 sheet was filed is illegal and the same amounts to abuse of process of law."
12. In view of the above decision, it is clear 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.
13. Following the above said principles to the present case, I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court. Infact, the trial Court on the basis of the factual aspects noted supra, has framed charges for 8 the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 336, 307 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. The above said charges clearly disclose that, implication of accused No.11 has already taken into consideration while framing the charges against other accused persons. In toto, it can be safely stated that, the allegations against accused Nos.1 to 15 are one and the same and they are indivisible and inseparable in nature.
14. The trial Court infact bestowed its attention so far as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is concerned. It has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and ultimately the Court has came to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by proving the allegations made against them beyond reasonable doubt. The identification of the accused persons and seizer of the 9 incriminating articles itself were in doubt. Therefore, the Court has held that, the incident must have happened in a mob at a particular place. Therefore, no individual can be specifically implicated and it cannot be safely concluded that, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The above said judgment of acquittal was not subjected to any appeal by the State. It has not brought to the notice of the Court that any appeal is preferred. On the other hand, with all responsibility, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no appeal is pending against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
16. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to order to continue the prosecution against the petitioner in the split up case. Otherwise, it amounts to abuse of process of law. No useful purpose would be served in 10 continuing the trial against the petitioner. The benefit of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 is also available to the petitioner. Hence, the same is hereby extended and the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.406/2002 arising out of Crime No.263/1999 of Aland Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 336, 307 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Principal JMFC at Aland and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG