- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2221 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100516 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. BHEEMAPPA HULLOLLI @ BEMSHI S/O. MAHADEVA HULLOLLI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O.HADAGINAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADYOJAT R.BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TILAKAWADI P.S.BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. 2. SRI. NAGESH S/O. PARISH YADAL OCC. ASSISTANT COMANDANT, KSRP, 2ND P.M. BELAGAVI-590001, REPRESENTED BY SPP, H.C.DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 REGISTERED C.C.NO. 1103/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC- IV COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 109, 417, 419, 465, 468, 471 420 120B R/W 37 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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: 2025.02.11 15:51:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2221 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent No.1 – State. 2. The petitioner, who is facing the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The case of prosecution is that during selection process for the post of police constable, accused No.2 had applied for the said post. Accused No.1 had allegedly participated in the written examination by impersonating accused No.2. The specific allegation against accused No.3 is that he introduced accused No.2 to accused No.1, who allegedly impersonated accused No.2. The petitioner (accused No.3) has been implicated solely on the basis of voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein the claim of accused No.3 was a mediator. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2018) 8 SCC 271], 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2221 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2025 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 corroborated by material evidence substantiating the allegations against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement. 6. In the present case, the allegation against accused No.3, even if it is 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 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 based solely on the inadmissible confession statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2221 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2025 ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1103/2022 pending on the file of the learned JMFC IV Court, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.3 is hereby quashed. iii) The Trial Court to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observations made in this order is only for the purpose of accused No.3. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25