IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA W.P. NO.37679/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN DEVARAJ, S/O KALEGOWDA, R/A GOVINDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY GORUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SHIVANNA, S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O ARKALGODU, HASSAN TALUK & DIST – 571 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DELETED V.O.D 22.08.17) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2373/2014 (IN CRIME NO.218/1994) ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3 in SC No.27/1995 (Split up CC No.2373/2014) on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan. However, accused Nos.2 to 5 in the said case were not committed for trial as they were absconding. A1 and A6 were tried by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Hassan in the said SC No.27/1995 and acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 506, 120B, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Subsequently, a split up charge sheet has been filed by the Police against this petitioner and a case has been registered against him in CC No.2373/2014 and it is at the stage of committal.
3. After going through the judgment of the trial Court passed in SC No.27/1995 and also going through the factual aspects of the case, it is clear that common allegations have been made against accused Nos.1 to 6. The charges leveled against the accused persons particularly A1 and A6, who are already acquitted are that on 30.8.1994 at about 8.30 p.m., at Konanagundi on Hassan Gorur Road, A1 and A6 along with A2 to A5, who were the members of the unlawful assembly with a common object of committing the murder of one Bhadregowda, have formed into an unlawful assembly and thereafter all the accused persons were committed rioting and also they have conspired with each other for the purpose of committing the said offence. In furtherance of their common object, Accused Nos.1 to 6 on the above said date and time committed the murder of Bhadregowda @ Raja and committed the offence u/s.302 of IPC and also they have suppressed the material and they made the evidence disappear in order to screen themselves from legal punishment. Accordingly, the trial Court has framed charges in such a manor incorporating the allegations against the petitioner herein also.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 16 witnesses and got marked 27 documents Exhibits P1 to P27 and also Material Objects MOs.1 to 8. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against A1 & A6. The prosecution has led evidence not only against A1 and A6, but also against all the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution may not have better evidence against the petitioner herein than the one already adduced by the prosecution.
5. On looking into the above said factual aspect and also consideration of the materials on record by the learned Sessions Judge in the said judgment, the allegations made against all the accused persons are indivisible, inseparable and they are so intrinsically inter-connected, it cannot be bifurcated in order to try Accused No.3 petitioner herein separately.
6. Under the above said circumstances, benefit of acquittal judgment rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan in SC No.27/1995 dated 3.10.1997 is equally beneficial to the petitioner herein.
7. In view of the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer an unreported the decision of this court in the case of SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of the 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 considering this case, it is worth to refer the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein, it was held that:
“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.”
8. 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.
Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed.”
9. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said two cases, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings against this petitioner so as to avoid un-necessary wastage of judicial time. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No.2373/2014 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, are hereby quashed.
PL* Sd/-
JUDGE