Ani @ Ananda @ Muddegowda vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5323 Kant

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.1559 OF 2022


BETWEEN

ANI @ ANANDA
@ MUDDEGOWDA
S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHUGADA PALYA,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
                                     ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADV. FOR
   SRI. SHIVARAJU, ADV.]


AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY THALAGATTAPURA POLICE,
      REP. BY
      THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.
                               2



2.   UAMDEVI
     W/O LATE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/AT IN FRONT OF GOPAL HOUSE,
     BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
     KAGGALIPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1]

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.96/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.120-B, 302 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC NOW PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU (ACCUSED
NO.8).

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                  THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in S.C.No.96/2017 to be

continued against the petitioner for offences punishable

under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 149 of

IPC. The petitioner is accused No.8 in the said case.

2. Heard Sri. Sharath J.M., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Yashoda, learned

HCGP for the respondent - State.

3. The brief facts as projected by the

prosecution are as follows:

On an allegation of commission of murder of one

Lakshmi Narasimha, a case is registered against nine

accused on 20.03.2013 for offences punishable under

Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

After registration of the crime, on investigation, the

Police file a charge sheet on 19.06.2013. On the ground

that the petitioner was not available for trial, a split up

case was made against the petitioner in

S.C.No.96/2017. On 05.07.2018, a common charge

against all the accused is framed by the learned

Sessions Judge. After a full blown trial, the Sessions

Court acquits all the accused in S.C.No.191/2013.

Since a split up case had already been made against the

petitioner in S.C.No.96/2017 for the same offences, the

petitioner was not the beneficiary of such acquittal.

4. It is in the teeth of continuance of

S.C.No.96/2017 that the petitioner has knocked the

doors of this Court seeking acquittal as is done to

others in the aforesaid case - S.C.No.191/2013.

5. The learned counsel Sri.Sharath J.M., would

vehemently argue and contend that the charge against

all the other accused was commission of murder. The

graphic details of the report of the investigation would

reveal that the other accused had infact indulged in

such alleged murder. The petitioner is alleged to have

driven the other accused after the completion of the

crime. Beyond this, there is no allegation against the

petitioner. He seeks parity with others.

6. The learned counsel would submit that at

best, it would be Sections 120B or 149 of IPC and never

302 of IPC against the petitioner and would submit that

the benefit of acquittal being given to the petitioner as

well, in the light of nothing against the petitioner in the

investigation or in the charge sheet.

7. The learned HCGP would however refute the

submissions and contend that as the other accused

have come out clean in the trial, the petitioner also has

to come out clean and this Court would not exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and obliterate

those proceedings against the petitioner.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated fact of the alleged

incident having taken place on 20.03.2013 is not in

dispute. The Police after investigation have filed a

charge sheet. Column No.17, the summary of the

charge sheet, reads as follows:

"PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ:- Brief Facts of the case [Add

separate sheet if necessary]À

PÀ®A 120(©), 302 eÉÆvÉUÉ 149 L¦¹ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÄÀ ªÀ vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÄÀ gÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ ¨ÉA.zÀ.vÁ|| GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½, PÀUÀΰåÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ J¸ïJ¯ïJ£ï JAlgï ¥ÉæöʸÀ¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðj £ÁåAiÀÄ¨É¯É CAUÀr ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20/03/13 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8-45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ®QëöäãÀgÀ¹AºÀ @ ªÀÄzsÄÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÄÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ CAPÀt 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ F »AzÉ «£ÁPÁgÀt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ 5£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JA§ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è zÉéõÀ ElÄÖPÆ É AqÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 9 gÀªÀgÉV£À DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÁgÉÆúÀ½î ºÉÆç½, ªÀÄÄvÀÄÛUÀzÀ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë 13 gÀªÀgÀ d«Ää£À ºÀ¼É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ 9£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ®QëöäãÀgÀ¹AºÀ @ ªÀÄzsÄÀ £À£ÄÀ ß PÉJ-05-JA©- 6563 gÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw N«Ä¤ PÁj£À°è PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄzsÀÄ PÁj¤AzÀ E½AiÀÄÄwÛzÝÀ AvÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß

»rzÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV vÀ½îzÀÄÝ, 6£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ DvÀ£À PÀtÚÂUÉ SÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JgÀa, 5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ PÀ¥Á¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÄÀ , 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ 2-3 ¨Áj vÀ¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÄÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆmÉÖUÉ ZÀÄaÑgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ºÉÆmÉÖ, Q§âj PÉÊUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ªÀÄzsÀÄ«£À vÀ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÉUÉ ZÀÄaÑzÄÀ Ý, §½PÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ®QëöäãÀgÀ¹AºÀ @ ªÀÄzsÀÄ «£À ºÉÆmÉÖUÉ ZÀÄaÑ wêÀæ gÀPÛÀUÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzsÄÀ PɼÀPÌÉ ©zÁÝUÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£É DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄzsÄÀ «£À vÀ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ®è£ÀÄß JwÛ ºÁQ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr J®ègÆ À PÉJ-01-J£ï-6854 £ÀA§j£À AiÀĹÖêÀiï PÁgÀÄ, PÉJ-05-JA©-6563 gÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw N«Ä¤ PÁgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÉJ-05-J¯ï-4057 gÀ AiÀĪÀĺÀ ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 8£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÉJ-01-J£ï-6854 gÀ AiÀĹÖêÀiï PÁgÀ£ÄÀ ß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆj¸À®àlÖ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ."

The only allegation that could be gathered from

the summary of the charge sheet is, after the other

accused allegedly committed the crime, the petitioner

drove them in an Esteem car. Beyond this, there is no

other allegation of any overt act performed by the

petitioner.

10. In the light of the petitioner not being

available for trial at the relevant point in time, a split up

case was made against accused No.8/petitioner in

S.C.No.96/2017, while the others were tried in

S.C.No.191/2013.

11. The learned Sessions Judge framed a

common charge against all the accused and the charge

framed, reads as follows:

"CHARGE I, J.V. Vijayananda, c/c VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, do hereby charge above accused as follows:

That on 20.3.2013 at about 8.45p.m. near Kaggalipura, Opp. To SBM Bank, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, you

accused No.1 to 7 and 9 along with accused No.8 with a common object committed murder intentionally causing the death of one Lakshmi Narasimha @ Madhu and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the above said charge."

12. Both in the charge framed and the alteration

of charge, what is the allegation is, the petitioner drives

the vehicle carrying the accused after commission of the

crime.

13. The learned Sessions Judge after a full

blown trial, acquits all the accused for want of evidence

by its order dated 29.12.2020. The reason rendered in

the elaborate judgment is that there was no evidence to

drive home the guilt of murder against the accused, as

the eyewitnesses turned hostile and consequently,

grants benefit of doubt. The reason, as is found, reads

as follows:

" 95. Taking into consideratoin the entire evidence of P.W.1 to 18, Ex.P.1 to P.30 and M.O.1 to 13, in all examined by the prosecution who are witnesses to the motive for the commission of murder and criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased and independent eye witnesses to the commission of murder and statements leading to discovery or recovery through independent seizure mahazar witness and as well as other circumstantial witness. These material star eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with cogent and corroborative evidence. The commission of offence by the accused No.1 to 7 and 9 as charged against them is not established by the prosecution through direct evidence as well as recovery evidence. In the present case, there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements. The eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of

the prosecution. The evidence of the Investigation Officer is not truthful and trustworthy. The evidence of supported witnesses is full of contradiction, omission and improvements. These omissions, contradictions and improvements will cause very root of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are contrary to the statement of witnesses, contents of compliant and as well as charge leveled against the accused persons and herein there are lurking doubts in the story of the prosecution and many missing links are there. Except quantity, there is no quality of evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge alleged against the accused persons by adducting corroborative and cogent material evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused persons. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 to in the Negative.

ORDER

In exercise of power conferred u/s

are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s Section 120(B), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

           Bail   bonds    and     sureties   bonds    of
     accused No.1 to 7 and 9 shall stands
     cancelled.

Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences, this Court is of the considered opinion that the wife of the deceased Lakshmi Narasimha @ Madhu is entitled for Victim Compensation as per Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C. Hence, office is hereby directed to place the file before the Hon'ble Chairman DLSA to consider the award for Compensation to the Victim."

and 9 stood acquitted by order dated 29.12.2020. The

order has attained finality, as State has not preferred

any appeal against the said order of acquittal,

acquitting accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9.

15. Since the split up case against the petitioner

subsisted in S.C.No.96/2017, now the trial is sought to

be conducted against the petitioner/accused No.8.

16. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the

acquittal of the other accused, if trial is permitted to be

continued against the petitioner in S.C.No.96/2017, it

would become an abuse of process of law, as the

petitioner is now sought to be tried for an offence under

Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 149 of IPC.

The commission of murder was alleged against the other

accused, who have all been acquitted. In the teeth of

that acquittal, the petitioner cannot be tried for offence

under Section 302 of IPC, as there was no allegation

even at the outset against the petitioner for offence

under Section 302 of IPC. What remains is Section

120B and 149 of IPC. Those were the very same

allegations against the other accused as well, in

S.C.No.191/2013. Those accused having been

acquitted. Section 120B and 149 of IPC also cannot be

laid against the petitioner. Permitting trial thus would

without doubt, become an abuse of process of law and

result in miscarriage of justice.

17. The view of mine in this regard is fortified by

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwas

Bhandari vs. State of Punjab and another

(Crl.A.No.105/2021, DD.03.02.2021), wherein it has

held as follows:

" 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the

prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children out of that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, no justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant.

11. Hence, the present appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the entire proceedings consequent to FIR No.31 of 2013 and charge sheet stand quashed."

18. The said judgment of the Apex Court is

followed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in the

following cases:

      i)      Anand @ Tambittu @ Tambi @
              R.Ravi vs. State of Karnataka and
              another

[Crl.P.No.5651/2021] dd.02.09.2021

ii) Ramesh @ Ekamabram vs. State of Karnataka and another [Crl.P.No.3426/2021 dd.10.12.2021]

19. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts

and the acquittal of the other accused, permitting trial

against the petitioner that too for an offence under

Section 302 of IPC, in the light of the judgment rendered

by the Apex Court (Supra), would result in miscarriage

of justice.

20. The Apex Court (Supra) also holds that in a

case of this nature, the Hon'ble High Court ought to

have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C and obliterated such proceedings, failing which,

it would result in miscarriage of justice.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.96/2017 pending on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, stands quashed.

In view of the disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG