Karnataka High Court
Rajesh R vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44999
CRL.P No. 12737 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12737 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAJESH R,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O RAJENDRAN,
RESIDING AT NO.125,
BILAL MASJID ROAD,
MANGAMMANA PALYA,
BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MICOLAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by B
K STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Court of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O ANGUCHETTY,
C/O THAMMAIAH,
RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS,
K R LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44999
CRL.P No. 12737 of 2023
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.929/2015 NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.307, 323 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC
ON THE COMPLIANT OF KRISHNAN IN MICO LAYOUT POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.582/2012.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 is charge-sheeted for the
offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 22.11.2012
at about 2:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 and the Juvenile
came to the shop of the P.W.1 and purchased chips. C.W.13
asked them to pay Rs.30/-. The accused paid Rs.25/- and
C.W.13 insisted them to pay balance amount of Rs.5/-, at that
time, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the juvenile picked up a quarrel
with C.W.13 and abused him in filthy language and accused
No.2 and juvenile caught hold of him and accused No.1 stabbed
with a knife on his stomach, and caused grievous injury with
an intention to commit murder. Since petitioner/accused No.1
was absconding, the charge-sheet was split up and trial was
conducted against accused No.2. The injured witness namely
C.W.13 was examined as P.W.3 and in his examination-in-chief
he did not identify the accused who had assaulted and abused
him as per the averments made in the FIR. P.W.3 was treated
as hostile and he was cross examined and nothing was elicited
NC: 2023:KHC:44999
to prove the case of the prosecution. The trial Court accordingly
acquitted accused No.2 of the offences alleged.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. The charge against accused Nos.1 and 2 is that
they with a common intention tried to commit the murder of
C.W.13. The Trial Court acquitted accused No.2 on the ground
that the injured witness had turned hostile and prosecution had
failed to establish the guilt of accused No.2.
5. It is a settled law that when there are no separate
and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and
other accused persons, and when other accused persons are
acquitted, it would amount to abuse of the process of law, if the
prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner.
6. It is also a settled law that the judgment of
acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the
meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and as such,
the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused.
But the said proposition of law is applicable only to cases where
material witnesses are not examined by the prosecution.
7. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined
all the charge sheet witnesses including the injured witness,
and also marked the documents which were produced along
NC: 2023:KHC:44999
with the charge sheet, but failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
8. Having regard to the fact that all the prosecution
witnesses were examined and the prosecution having failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt resulting in acquittal of
co-accused, it would be a futile exercise, if the
petitioner/accused No.1 is subjected to trial since the
probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. So as to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain parity, it
would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal petition is allowed
ii) The Impugned proceedings in S.C. No.929/2015 on
the file of LIX Additional City and Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru stands quashed and the petitioner-accused No.1 is
acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Crime
No.582/2012 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station.
iii) Petitioner who is in judicial custody to be released
forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
