- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14507 CRL.P No. 2428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A CENGAVI VILLAGE C S PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT 572213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH A P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562130 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. SRI K JAGADISH S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 12, 2ND CROSS, HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MUTTURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU 560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.03.2025) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14507 CRL.P No. 2428 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C NO. 197/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, FOR THE O/P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 201 R/W 149. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, accused No. 17, has been charge‑sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution’s case is as follows: the deceased, Krishnamurthy, habitually extorted money from-and, if refused, assaulted various persons, whom he taunted as belonging to the “Rama and Laxman” group. While both the deceased and Accused No. 4 were in jail on separate matters, Accused No. 4 was released first; upon his release, the deceased demanded ₹5,000 from him. Accused No. 4 informed his friend, Accused No. 1, and the seventeen accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased. 3. On 10.09.2010, Accused No. 4 lured the deceased to Ullala Village, near Vajreshwari Talkies, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14507 CRL.P No. 2428 of 2025 promising payment of ₹5,000. At about 1:30 p.m., the deceased arrived with CW‑2 and CW‑3 in an Indica car (KA‑05‑C‑8497), driven by CW‑2. The deceased sent CW‑3 to fetch cigarettes. Accused No. 4 then arrived in a Santro (KA‑05‑M‑2630) with Accused Nos. 2 and 15. The deceased and Accused No. 4 alighted and walked together, conversing, when two further groups of assailants appeared: Accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 in a Qualis (KA‑02‑B‑8944) driven by Accused No. 5, and Accused Nos. 8 and 16 on a motorcycle (KA‑51‑R‑2216). 4. Accused No. 2 first struck the deceased with a long weapon; thereafter, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 also assaulted him on the face, head, and body. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Accused Nos. 3 and 6 discarded their weapons and fled. CW‑1 (Jagadeesh, the deceased’s brother) arrived shortly after, upon hearing of the murder, and found his brother’s body lying in a pool of blood. 5. The petitioner initially absconded and was excluded from the first split charge‑sheet trial against Accused Nos. 1–16. After hearing all prosecution evidence, the Trial Court acquitted those accused on 21.12.2018; that judgment attained finality. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14507 CRL.P No. 2428 of 2025 6. Having examined the charge‑sheet witnesses and documents, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused Nos. 1–16 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted them on 21.12.2018, which has attained finality. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 8. A perusal of the charge‑sheet material shows that the allegations against Accused Nos. 1–17 are identical and undifferentiated. 9. It is settled law that, in the absence of separate and distinct allegations against an accused when co‑accused have been acquitted, continuing prosecution against that accused amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Although a coordinate bench in Crl.P.No. 6857/2020 held that an acquittal of co‑accused is not itself admissible under Sections 40–44 of the Evidence Act and thus does not automatically extend to other accused, that decision arose where only two witnesses were examined and no eye‑witnesses testified. 11. In the present case, all prosecution witnesses named in the charge‑sheet were examined and all relevant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14507 CRL.P No. 2428 of 2025 documents were marked, yet the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In these circumstances—where the probability of conviction is remote and further trial would serve no purpose but to perpetuate abuse of process, and in order to maintain parity with the co‑accused—the impugned proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC No.197/2012 pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to petitioner - accused No.17 is hereby quashed. 14. The petitioner-accused No.17 is acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Crime No.424/2010 registered by the Tavarekere Police Station. 15. Pending I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 127