- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16752 CRL.P No. 4359 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4359 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BASAPPA RUDRAPPA DUNDANATTI @ BASAVRAJU DUNDANATTI AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: COOK R/O BERANATTI VILLAGE IN GOKAK TALUKA DIST BELAGAVI-591227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KENGERI P.S. R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRL. BENCH, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DR. DEVAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGE 46 YEARS OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT J.S.S. ENGINEERING COLLEGE UTTRALLI, KENGERI BENGALURU-560060 R/O: NO.51, 7TH CROSS SHREEKRISHNA NAGAR RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16752 CRL.P No. 4359 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASHING CHARGE SHEET DATED 02.02.2023 AT C.C.NO.10885/2023 ARISING OUT OF KENGERI PS CR.NO.368/2020 AGAINST PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 R/W SEC. 34, 37 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. C.M.M., COURT, BENGALURU AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED, INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO. 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.5, who has been charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 419, 471, 465, 468, 109 read with Sections 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, during the selection process for the post of Special Reserve Police Constable, accused No.2 had submitted an application for the said post. It is alleged that accused No.1 appeared in the written examination in place of accused No.2. The specific allegation against accused Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6 is that they were involved in creating a forged Aadhaar card in the name of accused No.2. The petitioner – accused No.5 has been implicated solely based on the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein it is stated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16752 CRL.P No. 4359 of 2025 that they were introduced to each other by accused Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6, who also allegedly edited the Aadhaar card of accused No.2. 3. In the present case, the allegations made against accused No.5, even if taken at face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has not produced any independent or corroborative material to substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 2. 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 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16752 CRL.P No. 4359 of 2025 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 against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely on the basis of a confession statement of co-accused. 6. In the present case, the allegation against accused No.5, even if taken at 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. 7. 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 Nos.1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16752 CRL.P No. 4359 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.10885/2023 pending on the file of the learned I ACMM Court, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner - accused No.5 is hereby quashed. 9. The Trial Court shall proceed against the other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 200