- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12827 CRL.P No. 2877 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2877 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ABDUL MAZHAR @ ABDUL MAZHAR S/O J B USMAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO 9-44-3 BANDI KOTYA NEW COLONY ULLALA, MANGALORE 575020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IMITIAZ B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE RAILWAY POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BULDING BENGALURU 01. 2. MOHAMMAD IQBAL S/O HASANABBA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MELANGADY DARGA ROAD, ULLALA MANGALORE 575020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN LPC NO. 45/2022 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 07/2009 FOR THE Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12827 CRL.P No. 2877 of 2025 O/P/U/S 324 R/W 34 OF IPC, PERTAINING TO MANGALORE RAILWAY P.S PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II JMFC AT MANGALORE, D.K. 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.1, who has been charged sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 6.8.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. in Railway Station, Mangaluru City when CW1 was sitting in S7 compartment of Mangaluru-Chennai Train to go to Andhra, accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention entered into the S7 compartment and restrained him. Accused No.1 held CW1 and accused No.2 kicked his face by hand, accused No.3 pierced him with a knife, and Accused No.4 assaulted him by his hand and thereby voluntarily caused CW1 to sustain simple injuries. 3. The petitioner-accused No.1 was absconding, and therefore, the split charge sheet was filed and a trial was conducted in relation to the other accused. The prosecution examined all the material witnesses and the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the said accused on the ground that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12827 CRL.P No. 2877 of 2025 prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the material witness had turned hostile, and other witnesses to the incident had also turned hostile. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court has attained finality. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018) 8 SCC 271 has held as follows: “It would be noticed that, as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general evidentiary value, because whatever is considered by the court as evidence, including circumstances and probabilities, must meet the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. While a confession may be considered as evidence in a broad sense due to Section 30, it is not evidence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. As such, in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot rely solely on the confession of a co-accused. Instead, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and, after forming its opinion on the quality and effect of such evidence, may refer to the confession for assurance in reaching a conclusion of guilt. That is the effect of Section 30. This view has also been expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [1952 SCR 526: AIR 1952 SC 159: 1952 Cri LJ 839], wherein the Privy Council decision in Bhuboni Sahu v. R. [1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147] was cited with approval.” 5. It is a well-settled principle that any confession made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless corroborated by material evidence substantiating the allegations made against the accused. Furthermore, an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12827 CRL.P No. 2877 of 2025 accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement of other accused. 6. It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and the other accused person, and when the other accused is acquitted, it would amount to an abuse of process of law if the prosecution is ordered to continue proceeding against the petitioner. 7. It is also settled law that the judgment of acquittal of the co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused. But the said proposition of law is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined. 8. The Trial Court acquitted accused on the ground that the prosecution did not establish that the said accused had assaulted CW-1. It would be futile exercise, if the petitioner 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. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12827 CRL.P No. 2877 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in LPC No.45/2022 arising out of Crime No.7/2009 registered by the Mangalore Railway PS, pending on the file of the II JMFC, at Mangalore, DK, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.1, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4