- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12358 CRL.P No. 3986 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3986 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMAN PARANNAVAR S/O MUTTEPPA PARANNAVAR AGED 28 YEARS OCC FARMER R/O UDAGATTI VILALGE POST HADIGINAL TQ GOKAK DIST BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591307. 2. BIMAPPA HULLOLI S/O MAHADEV HULLOLI AGE 28 YEARS OCC. FARMER R/O HADAGINALJ VILLAGE TQ GOKAK DIST BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591307. 3. ADIVEPPA YARAGUDRI S/O YALLAPPAN LYARAGUDRI AGE 27 YEARS OCC FARMER R/O HADAGINAL VILLAGE TQ GOKAK DIST BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591307. 4. IRANNA KOLADUR S/O NARAYAN KOLADUR AGE 540 YEARS OCC. PHOTO STUDIO R/O SAINAGAR GOKAK TOWN T/Q GOKAK AND DIS BELAGAVI KARNATAKTA 591307. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12358 CRL.P No. 3986 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR H C, BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560001. 2. R RAMESH AGE 49 YEARS OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR R/O BASAVANGUDI POLICE STATION K R ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.13977/2023 ARISING OUT OF FIR AND COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 417, 420, 417, 471, 465, 468, 109 R/W 34, 37 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners - accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7, who have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 419, 471, 465, 468, 109 read with Sections 34, 37 of IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12358 CRL.P No. 3986 of 2025 3. The prosecution alleges that the Superintendent of Police issued a notification for recruitment of candidates to the post of Special Reserve Police Constable (KSRP). In the said selection process, accused No.3 had applied for the said post, and accused No.1 by impersonating himself as accused No.3 had participated in the written examination. The specific allegation against the petitioners - accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 is that they had introduced accused No.3 to accused No.1. The allegation against accused No.7 is that he created a fake aadhar card of accused No.3. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In the present case, the allegation against accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 even if it is taken on the face of it does not fulfill the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences as alleged against them. The prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative material to substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of co-accused. 6. It is well settled in law that a confession statement made by an accused while in police custody is admissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that a conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, particularly when made in police custody. In the present case, there is no other substantive evidence to connect accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 to the alleged act of impersonation. Further, there are no allegations or materials on record to suggest that the said accused had any - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12358 CRL.P No. 3986 of 2025 knowledge of or actively participated in the fraudulent scheme involving the co-accused. Mere introduction of one person to another, without any direct involvement or mens rea, does not constitute an offence under Sections 109, 419 or 420 of the IPC. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence1, 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.” 8. 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 against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement by co-accused. 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12358 CRL.P No. 3986 of 2025 9. In the present case, the allegation against accused No.3, even if taken at its face value, does not fulfill the essential elements required to constitute the offences as alleged against him. The prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative material to substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. 10. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners solely based on the inadmissible confession statement of co-accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners solely based on the confession statement of a co-accused cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.13977/2023 pending on the file of the learned I ACMM, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioners - accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 is hereby quashed 12. The respondent No.1 is at liberty to investigate into the alleged offence against the other accused. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 52