[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC:11284
                                                      CRL.P No. 2970 of 2026


                 HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2026
                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    PRAVEEN D @ MADHU @ MADDY
                       C/O DEVANATH,
                       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                       R/AT NO.842,
                       16 TH CROSS,
                       2ND STAGE,
                       NEAR ANNAMMA PARK,
                       KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
                       J.P. NAGAR,
                       BANGALORE SOUTH,
                       BENGALURU - 560 078
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. DEEPA V. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally
signed by              SRI. MOHANKUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY       AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR PS,
                       BENGALURU,
                       REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
                       BENGALURU - 560 001

                 2.    SRI. RAMESH. N
                       S/O NANJAPPA REDDY,
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:11284
                                        CRL.P No. 2970 of 2026


HC-KAR



   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
   R/AT NO.3/1,
   31ST MAIN ROAD,
   BEHIND KUVEMPU NAGAR BUS STAND,
   NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
   BTM 2ND STAGE,
   BENGALURU CITY - 560 076
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

     THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS)    PRAYING   TO   QUASH     THE   ENTIRE    PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.14 INITIATED BY
THE LEARNED I/C LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU IN S.C NO.1529 OF 2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302,
120(B), 427 R/W SECTION 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 3(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC
PROPERTY ACT, 1984, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY IN
CRIME NO.0151 OF 2019.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                                 -3-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC:11284
                                             CRL.P No. 2970 of 2026


HC-KAR



                          ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - accused No.14 is now at the doors of this

Court calling in question continuance of S.C.No.1529/2021

registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144,

147, 148, 341, 302, 120B, 427 read with Section 149 of the

IPC and under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984.

2. Heard Smt. Deepa V. Shetty, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned

HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1 and have perused the

material on record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.14 along with several

accused get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.151/2019. The

police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The petitioner

was not available for a trial like few others. The accused who

were available for trial were tried and acquitted by an order of

Sessions Court dated 30.08.2025. A split charge is drawn

against the petitioner, which has now resulted in his

continuance of further proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

before the Court seeking parity in treatment with the others,

who have been acquitted of the offence.

4. Learned counsel, Smt. Deepa V. Shetty, appearing

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the

petitioners are alleged of offences of unlawful assembly and

murder. The petitioner being accused No.14 and the other

accused right from accused No.1 to 13 or even others being

acquitted of the offences by the order of the Sessions Court,

the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. Learned

counsel further submits that the accused has been taken to

judicial custody on account of a split charge being drawn

against him.

5. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission

contending that the petitioner, who has escaped trial, should

not be shown any indulgence. He should also come out clean in

a full blown trial like the other accused and would seek

dismissal of the petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. All

the accused are tried in S.C.No.1529/2021. The Court of

Session tries the accused, who were available for trial and

acquits them on 30.08.2025. The order of acquittal qua the

other accused is on the following reason:

"Appreciation of evidence:

55. The evidence of PW.60 Dr. S.R. Jagannath, contents of Exs.P.128 and P.130 post mortem reports of the of deceased Varun and deceased Thamma Manja and inquest panchanama marked at Ex.P.26, evidence of PW.5 Raju, PW.8 - Vankatesh and evidence of PW.17 -

Venkatesh unequivocally establish death of Varun and Thamma Manja is homicidal in nature. As such point No.1 is taken up for consideration is held in the Affirmative

56. POINTS No.2 to 7:

The entire case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Three Bench Judgment reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 - Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh laid down the mode of evaluation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench Judgment reported in AIR 1960 SC 29 - Govindareddy Vs. State of Mysore, reiterated the said principles and it is as follows;

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a clear of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".

58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its another Three Bench decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, laid down Five golden principals (Panchsheel) in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

(i) The circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty.

(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved, and

(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

With this proposition in mind this court proceed to examine evidence available on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

59. In this case prosecution relied on motive, criminal conspiracy and recovery of incriminating material at the instance of accused.

60. It is the case of the prosecution that, deceased Thamma Manja along with his henchmen committed murder of one Tablet Raghu and assaulted on accused No.14 and case came to be registered in Cr.No.247/2014 on the file of Talaghattapura police station against Thamma Manja and others. That aspect has not been disputed by the accused.

61. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act suggests that direct evidence to prove criminal conspiracy is hardly available Only based on the proof circumstances court has to infer conspiracy hatched by the accused. In this case, even though panchanama was drawn in the place where accused hatched criminal conspiracy, panch witnesses to the said panchanama have not supported the drawing of panchanama in the said place. Except the unproved panchanama no evidence is available to prove criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused to eliminate Thamma Manja in order to avenge the murder of Tablet Raghu, who happens to be the brother of accused No.1 Narendra.

62. Even though, prosecution relied on recovery of incriminating material at the instance of accused, panch witnesses PW.27- Harish, PW.29 - Kishore, PW.30 - Tanveer Hussain, PW.46 - Venkatesh and PW.47 - Anilkumar have not supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution in order to prove the recovery of incriminating material has not relied on electronic evidence i.e., photographs or videographs taken at the time of recovery of material objects.

63. In this case, except police officers and doctor who conducted autopsy, all independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. As such, prosecution fails to prove criminal conspiracy, presence and participation of accused in the crime and recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of accused to prove this case. As such, there is no cogent, coherent or convincing evidence available to bring home the guilt of

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

the accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 21. Hence, looking to these facts and circumstances, this court is constrained to answer the point Nos.2 to 7 under consideration in the negative."

8. The concerned Court holds that the independent

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and

the prosecution has miserably failed in driving home the guilt

beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the order of acquittal is

passed.

9. In the light of the petitioner being accused No.14

and all other accused being acquitted on the score that none of

the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and

prosecution has miserably failed in driving home the guilt

beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner also become

entitled to the benefit of acquittal, as eventually, even if the

petitioner is permitted to be tried in the subject

S.C.No.1529/2021 would end up in acquittal. Though the

accused who escaped trial should not be shown indulgence and

a direction should be issued to participate in trial and to come

out clean. It is to save precious judicial time, I deem it

appropriate to accept the petition and obliterate the

proceedings against accused No.14 - the present petitioner.

NC: 2026:KHC:11284

HC-KAR

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.1529/2021 pending before

the I/c LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the petitioner.