- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13234 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT RAGHUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KURUKUNAPPALLI MANDALAM, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M. SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REP. BY B.I.A.L. POLICE STATION THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. ANAND. M S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLLAGE, DEVANHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 571 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.15024/2019 REGISTERED BY B.I.A.L. P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 201, 302, R/W 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF LD. V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.15024/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 201, 302 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.15020/2016 has pointed out that the other co-accused, who were tried for identical allegations and on the very same set of evidence, have been acquitted by the judgment and order of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 acquittal dated 03.07.2021. It is submitted that the substratum of the prosecution case having failed in earlier trial, there remains no independent material to continue proceedings against the present petitioner. Placing reliance on the said judgment of acquittal and further relying upon the view taken by the coordinate Bench in cases of similar nature, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court to demonstrate that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. 3. This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.15020/2016. The same is extracted as under: "40. In the light of the above principles, the factual position narrated herein above required to be appreciated. Admittedly the FIR was registered against unknown persons and Investigating Officer even initially could not find out the identity of the deceased. The dead body was buried by the Investigating Officer since nobody came forward to identify or claim the body and it was in highly decomposed stage. Finally in the course of investigation the Investigating Officer succeed to got identified the deceased on the basis of cloths said to be found at the place where the body was recovered, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 through the relatives of the deceased. However, the Investigating Officer has not collected any samples from the body of the deceased to send it for DNA analysis. 41. In order to prove that, the material objects marked by the prosecution as MO 1 to 3 were belongs to deceased Krishnappa, the prosecution got examined the brother of the deceased i.e., PW9 Narayanappa, however in his evidence he deposed that he did not seen the cloths on the body of the deceased and he came to know through police that, those cloths were found near the body of deceased. PW10 Venkatesh is another brother, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and he did not identify the cloths. PW16 Narayanamma is the sister of the deceased also not supported the case of the prosecution and she turned hostile and even in the cross examination she refused to identify the Mo 1 to 3. PW19 Jayalakshmi is the daughter of deceased but she did no identify the cloths, but she did identify the body of the deceased thorough photograph, which is marked as Ex. P.3. 42. It is crucial to note that, none of the relatives had lodged any complaint regarding missing of deceased, though PW-19 deposed that, the deceased was seen last about 8 months prior to the incident in the village. Admittedly none of the witnesses deposed that on the alleged date of incident the deceased was found wearing MO.1 to 3. Apart from that, MO. 1 to 3 were not found on the body of deceased and the prosecution has projected that they were found near by the dead body. The post mortem report evident that, the body was in highly decomposed condition and was not in a position to identify. The prosecution even not produced the original photographs of the dead body and Xerox of the photographs annexed with charge sheet, through which the prosecution got identified the dead body through PW- 19, which in my view, can not be relied. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no conclusive evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the identity of the deceased, though the defence has not disputed the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 43. In order to prove that the death was homicidal, the prosecution got examined PW-17 Dr. Nagesh who had conducted the autopsy on unidentified body. He deposed that, at the time of conducting the autopsy, the body was in a highly decomposed condition and he noticed discoloration over face, front and back of neck, front and back side of chest, abdomen, upper limbs, lower limbs, Scrotal swelling was present. The Doctor has not given any opinion in conformity with regard to cause of death, but he has opined that since the body was found in the isolated surrounding under suspicious circumstances, the possibility of death due to foul play may be considered. He has stated that if one kicked the private part, there is possibility of death. The Doctor has not given definite opinion about the cause of death of deceased. 44. Further the prosecution has alleged that the deceased had illicit relationship with PW-20 Smt. Suguna, which was the motive for commission of crime. In order to prove said fact, though the prosecution got examined the deceased daughter i.e., Jayalakshmi as PW-19, she has not deposed anything about inimical relationship between the deceased and accused persons or with the family of PW-20. The prosecution got examined Dr. N. R Jayanthi as PW 18 to prove that within 3 months of marriage at the time of clinical examination, she found to be 6 months pregnant. Subsequently, she has given birth to a boy baby in the Government The medical Hospital Chintamani. documents are marked has Ex.P-20. However in order to prove that the deceased is the biological father of that child, there is no any evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore mere marking of document to prove that within 6 months of marriage of the accused No. 1 with the PW-20 she had given birth to a child, I am of the view that, cannot be considered as a substantial piece of evidence to hold that the deceased is the cause for her pregnancy. 45. The prosecution has not proved the recovery as per the procedure known to law. PW-2 Ramesh is a witness for the mahazar at Ex P-2, who turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW 7, 8 and 15 are the witnesses for seizure of motor cycle said to be used for commission of crime which seized under Ex.P-6. They turned hostile to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 the case of prosecution. PW 13 and 14 are the witnesses for the spot mahazar drawn at the place of incident in the presence of accused as per Ex.P-11. Both witnesses have turned hostile during their examination in chief and in their cross examination nothing elicited in support of prosecution, to presume that they deposed falsely at the instance of accused persons. 46. As per the case of prosecution, the only witness who seen the deceased last in the company of accused persons on that fateful day is PW-21 Ramesh who incidentally was working as cashier at Kavitha wines situated at H. Cross, Vijayapura. However in his chief examination he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he refuse to identify the accused persons. 47. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions I am of the view that considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in proper perceptive, the only conclusion which this court can draw is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the establish the chain of accused and failed circumstances by adducing cogent, concrete and legal evidence. It is settled position of law that in criminal justice system the burden is upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is always entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, I am of the constrained view that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, since the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point for consideration are answered in the 'Negative'." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.15020/2016, has submitted that in the said case, the other co-accused, who faced identical allegations and were tried on the same set - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 of evidence, in view of splitup charge sheet were acquitted by the judgment and order dated 03.07.2021. It is submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case, which was found to be wholly inadequate in the earlier trial, having failed against other co-accused, leaves no independent material to continue proceedings against the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further relied on the consistent view taken by coordinate Benches in matters of similar nature, asserting that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would be wholly unjust. 5. This Court finds it necessary to refer to the judgment in S.C.No.15020/2016, which clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the prosecution case and the substantial benefit that must accrue to the present petitioner as a co-accused. The judgment noted that the evidence adduced failed to establish which accused were apprehended by which police officials and whether the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 accused were planning any unlawful act, thereby casting serious doubt on the case against all the accused, including the present petitioner. 6. The Sessions Judge emphasized that, in the absence of independent witnesses and corroborative evidence, the prosecution case could not be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. Paragraph 41 of the judgment further reinforces this position, noting that the prosecution could not establish the intention or participation of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the alleged offences. The major discrepancies and failure of key witnesses to support the prosecution case led to the conclusion that no material existed against the accused to sustain the charges. It is also categorically stated that the case of the prosecution is wholly based on circumstantial evidence and the required chain of events is not proved. The judgment unequivocally holds that all ingredients of Sections 302 IPC were not proved beyond - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 reasonable doubt, and consequently, the co-accused were acquitted. 8. In light of the above, the petitioner, being similarly situated as one of the co-accused, is entitled to the benefit of the principle of consistency and legal parity. Where the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges against other accused on the same evidence, it cannot be allowed to proceed against the petitioner in isolation. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the face of the acquittal of co-accused, under identical circumstances, would not only violate the principle of equality before law but would also amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petitioner is prima facie entitled to the benefit of the acquittal granted to other co-accused in S.C.No. 15020/2016. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38945 CRL.P No. 13234 of 2025 ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed; ii. The proceedings pending in S.C.No.15024/2019 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli,Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 201, 302 read with 34 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned, are quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK