- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13923 CRL.P No. 4055 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4055 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SANTHOSH HANUMANTHA SAGAR S/O SHIVAPPA SAGAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT: NALLANETTI GRAMA, GOKAKA TALUK, BELAGAUM DISTRICT-591 307. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.27500/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ACMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU (CHARGE SHEETED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S/ 25 OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 R/W SECTION 120-B, 419, 420 OF IPC 1860 IN CRIME NO.85/2021 BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN PS) AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13923 CRL.P No. 4055 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner (accused No.3), who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Karnataka Education Act, and the Sections 120B, 420, 419 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 had applied for selection to the post of police constable. Accused No.2 impersonated accused No.1 and appeared in the written examination for selection to the post of police constable. The allegation against the petitioner - accused No.3 is that he introduced accused No.2 to accused No.1 3. 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 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13923 CRL.P No. 4055 of 2025 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.” 4. 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 it is corroborated by material evidence substantiating the allegations made against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely on the based of confession statement. 5. In the present case, the allegation against accused No.3, even if taken at face value, does not fulfill the essential elements required to constitute the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative material to substantiate the claims as made in the voluntary statement of accused No.3. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner solely based on the inadmissible confession statement of accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13923 CRL.P No. 4055 of 2025 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.27500/2022 pending on the file of the learned 1st ACMM, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.3 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9