- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2024 BETWEEN: GOPAL @ GOPI S/O PEDDANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BEHIND COUNTRY CLUB PAVAN COLONY, 1ST CROSS VIEWER'S COLONY GOTTEGERE PO BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANNERGHATTA PS REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. KRISHNA @ KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT DINNE PALYA, BEGURU HOBLI BENGALURU-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. M.L. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN S.C.NO.5009/2024 ORIGINATING FROM CRIME NO.173/2016 OF THE RESPONDENT BANNERGHATTA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 307, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, Accused No.1, who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, and 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner and others were in judicial custody in connection with the murder of the complainant’s younger brother, Ramesha. While in custody, the petitioner allegedly sent individuals near the complainant’s house to threaten him, stating that if the petitioner and his associates were convicted, the complainant would be eliminated. A case was registered in Crime No.66/2016 in relation to these threats. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 3. It is further alleged that on 17.09.2016, while the complainant was standing near a factory, five unknown persons armed with deadly weapons approached him. One of them allegedly threw chili powder into his eyes and attempted to assault him. The complainant raised an alarm, and upon hearing his cries, his sister-in-law and others rushed to the scene, causing the assailants to flee. 4. During the investigation, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended. In their confession statements, they allegedly stated that they had attempted to murder the complainant’s younger brother at the instance of the petitioner. Based solely on this confession, the petitioner has been implicated as Accused No.9. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner instigated the other accused to commit the crime. He further argued that the prosecution’s case relies solely on the confession statements of co-accused Nos.1 and 2, which are inadmissible in law unless corroborated by independent evidence. He contended that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue only on the basis of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 such statements would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 countered that the petitioner harbored animosity against the complainant due to the murder of his younger brother. He argued that the confession statements of the co-accused, coupled with corroborative material, clearly established that the other accused had attempted to murder the complainant at the behest of the petitioner. He submitted that the veracity of these allegations should be examined during trial and not at this stage, and therefore, sought dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for Respondent No.1 reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 8. The arguments of the learned counsel for all parties have been duly considered. 9. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that except for the allegation that the petitioner had animosity towards the complainant, there is no direct or indirect evidence substantiating the charges against him. Furthermore, it is undisputed that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 the petitioner was in judicial custody on the date of the alleged incident. 10. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2, who in their voluntary statements allegedly claimed that the crime was committed at the instance of Accused No.9 (the petitioner). 11. 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 independent material evidence. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement. 12. In the present case, aside from the confession statements of co-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the self- serving allegations of the complainant, there is no direct or indirect evidence to support the charges against the petitioner. Consequently, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against him would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC No.5009/2024, pending - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10504 CRL.P No. 9495 of 2024 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, insofar as they relate to the petitioner (Accused No.1), are hereby quashed. 14. The Trial Court is directed to proceed against the remaining accused in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The observations in this order are limited to the present petition alone. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93