- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2151 CRL.P No. 100485 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100485 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAPPA @ BASAVRAJ @ BASU S/O. RUDRAPPA DUNDANATTI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, RESIDENT OF BEERANGADDI VILLAGE, TALUK. GOKAK, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A.KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UDYAMBAG P S, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1927/2022 AND SAME IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE COURT OF JMFC, III COURT, BELAGAVI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.77/2020 IN SHAHAPUR P.S. BELAGAVI AND COMPLAINT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109, 120(B), 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AT DATED 22.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE B AND C AND FURTHER DISMISS THE CHARE-SHEETS AND ADDITIONAL CHARGE-SHEETS VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2151 CRL.P No. 100485 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner/accused No.4, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109, 201 and 120(B) read with Sections 34, and 35 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, in the selection process for the post of police constable, accused No.2 had applied for the said post. On his behalf, accused No.1 participated in the written examination by impersonating accused No.2. The specific allegation against accused No. 4 is that he had informed accused No.3 he would be paid money, if he appears in the written examination impersonating the accused No.2. Petitioner/accused has been implicated solely on the basis of confession statement of the accused No.1 who in his voluntary statement claimed that accused No.4 had informed him that he would paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, if he had impersonate accused No.2 in the written examination for the post of police constable. However, voluntary statement of accused No.1contains no corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against petitioner/accused No.4. Moreover there is no evidence to support the case that the accused No.1 conspired with other accused to assist accused No.2 in the written examination. 4. The petitioner has been implicated solely based on the confession statement of accused No. 3, who, in his voluntary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2151 CRL.P No. 100485 of 2025 statement, claimed that accused No. 4 had provided the photocopies of the documents related to the written examination. However, the voluntary statement of accused No. 3 contains no corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused No. 4 conspired with the other accused to assist accused No. 1 in the written examination. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna -vs- Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - (2018) 8 SCC 271 has ruled as follows: "It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general way, because whatever is considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must being with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt whichthe judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.[Kashimira Singh v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 526 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu case (Bhuboni Sahu V. R., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2151 CRL.P No. 100485 of 2025 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147 at p. 155.] has been cited with approval." 7. It is settled law that any confession statement made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the absence of corroborative material to substantiate the allegation against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on such a confession statement. The allegation against accused No. 4, even if taken at face value, does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offence alleged against him. 8. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings based solely on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, which is inadmissible in law, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1927/2022 pending on the file of the learned JMFC III Court, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.4 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21