- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10905 CRL.P No. 2464 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2464 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANAND C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O CHINNENAHALLI VILLAGE BADEKRE POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573101 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY CENTRAL PRISON BENGALURU) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION (REP BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001. 2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT AUTO CONSULTANT SRI RANGANATHSWAMY MAGADI MAIN ROAD CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI, DASANPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10905 CRL.P No. 2464 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.266/2024 CONNECTED WITH S.C.NO.269/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 448, 427, 307, 302, 114, 202 R/W 149 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.8, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 120(B), 448, 427, 307, 302, 114, 202 read with Section 149 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 18.10.2014, the accused conspired to kill the deceased - Muniraju, who was involved in the case of murder of Vishwanatha @ Vishwa, and accordingly, on 20.10.2014, all accused together formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of deceased Muniraju, and came near Kadabagere Cross, and armed with deadly weapons. Accused No.1, assaulted deceased Muniraju, twice on the head with a chopper, Accused No.2 assaulted on the head of the deceased with a chopper, Accused No.3 assaulted on the forehead and nose of the deceased with a chopper, and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10905 CRL.P No. 2464 of 2025 Accused No.4 assaulted on the back, flank, and neck of the deceased with a chopper and intentionally caused his death. 3. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that the charges against the accused are similar, and they are not distinct, and separate. 4. The trial was split up, since accused No.8 remained absconded, and the trial was conducted against accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 and 10. All the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident have turned hostile, and all the material witnesses were examined. 5. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the judgment of acquittal. The judgment of acquittal passed in relation to the said accused has attained finality. The allegation against the petitioner - accused No.8 is similar to that of accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 and 10. 6. It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner - accused No.8 herein and other accused persons, and when the other accused persons are acquitted, it would amount to an abuse - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10905 CRL.P No. 2464 of 2025 of process of law if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner herein. 7. In Crl.P.No.6857/2020, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held 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. However, in the said case, the decision was rendered in the context that only two witnesses viz., PWs.1 and 2 who were examined, and having not supported the case of the prosecution, but the eyewitnesses to the incident and other witnesses had not been examined before the Trial Court. 8. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses, and also marked the documents which were produced along with the charge sheet, and yet has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Having regard to the fact that all the prosecution witnesses were examined, and the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt resulting in the acquittal of co-accused, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. It is therefore deemed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10905 CRL.P No. 2464 of 2025 appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings, so as to prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain parity,. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC No.266/2024 connected with SC No.269/2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.8 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65