- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15695 CRL.P No. 4467 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4467 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVRAJ S/O RUDRAPPA DUNDANATTI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC COOK R/O. BERANATTI VILLAGE IN GOKAK TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KENGERI P.S. R/BY. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PRL. BENCH, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING CHARGE SHEET DATED 15.09.2023 AT C.C.NO.24150/2023 ARISING OUT OF MADIVALA P.S. CR.NO.207/2022 AGAINST PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENES P/U/S 419,420,465,468,471 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF 32ND ADDL.C.M.M COURT, BENGALURU AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15695 CRL.P No. 4467 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.3 who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 419, 417, 468, 420 r/w section 34 of IPC is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that in Crime No.77/2020 registered by the Shahapura Police Station, accused No.1 therein in his voluntary statement has allegedly stated that in his confession statement has narrated the various circumstances wherein he had impersonated the candidates who had applied for the selection of the post of Police Constables and appeared in the examination on their behalf, and in one of the circumstances, the accused No.1 therein had impersonated accused No.2 to appear in the examination for selection to the post of Police Constable. 3. Upon recording to the confession statement, a crime was registered by the Madivala Police Station in Crime No.207/2022. During the course of investigation, accused No.2 was issued with a notice under Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C. and after accused No.2 was enlarged on bail his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and in the voluntary statement, accused No.2 has allegedly have stated that he was introduced to accused No.1 by accused No.3. Based on the confession statement of accused No.1 and 2, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 for having allegedly introducing accused No.2 to accused No.1 so as to impersonate in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15695 CRL.P No. 4467 of 2025 written examination for selection to the post of Police Constable. 4. The petitioner-accused No.3 has been solely implicated on the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 who in their voluntary statements claimed that they were introduced by accused No.3. However, the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 contains no corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused 3 conspired with other accused to assist accused No.1 in the written examination. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. 6. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15695 CRL.P No. 4467 of 2025 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.” 7. 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. 8. Therefore in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings based solely on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 which is inadmissible in law, would amount to an abused of the process of law. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.24150/2023, on the file of the 32nd Additional C.M.M. Court, at Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.3, is hereby quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15695 CRL.P No. 4467 of 2025 10. The Trial Court to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this petition, and the observation made if any is only for the purpose of accused No.3. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR