- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12363 CRL.P No. 4041 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. 4041 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BHIMAPPA M. HULLOLI S/O MAHADEV HULLOLI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: FARMER R/O HADAGINAL VILLAGE, T/Q GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI PIN CODE 591 307. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MADIVALA POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HC, BENGALURU 560001. 2. ANIL KUMAR G S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: POLICE OFFICER R/O POLICE INSPECTOR E H T WING, CID BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTAILER PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.24150/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXII ACMM, BANGALORE, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12363 CRL.P No. 4041 of 2025 ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT, FIR IN CR.NO.207/2022 AND CHARGE SHEET NO.4/2023, WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B),201,406,465,468,471,419,420,34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN. 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 petitioner - accused No.4, who has been charge sheeted for the offences for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 406, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420, read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The case of the prosecution is that during the selection process for the post of police constable, accused No.2 had applied for the said post. Allegedly, accused No.1 participated in the written examination by impersonating himself as accused No.2. The specific allegation made against accused No.3 is that he had introduced accused No.1 to accused No.2. The petitioner/accused No.4 has been implicated solely on the basis of voluntary confession statement of accused No.3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12363 CRL.P No. 4041 of 2025 4. 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.” 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 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. 6. 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 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12363 CRL.P No. 4041 of 2025 substantiate the claims as made in the voluntary statements of accused No.3. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners solely based on the inadmissible confession statement of accused No.3 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.24150/2023 pending on the file of the learned XXXII Addl. CMM, Bangalore, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.4 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 60