- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2110 CRL.P No. 100915 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100915 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DANESHWARA HANUMANTA SHIRAGUPPI S/O. HANUMANTA SHIRAGUPPI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEASR, OCC. APC, DAR, BELAGAVI, R/O. JANAWAD VILLAGE, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591304. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY APMC YARD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. A.S.WARAD S/O. SUBHASH AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. RESERVE POLICE INSPECTOR, DAR UNIT, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO.6/2021 REGISTERED BY APMC POLICE, BELAGAVI AND PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.444/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF IV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109, 419, 420 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2110 CRL.P No. 100915 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.2, who has been charge- sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 109, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against him. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, issued a notification in the year 2020 for the recruitment of candidates to the post of Armed Police Constables. In the said recruitment process, 50 candidates were provisionally selected, and the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, directed that their medical examinations be conducted at BIMS Hospital, Belagavi. On 13.01.2021, 19 candidates presented themselves at BIMS Hospital for medical examination. Among them, accused No.1, a candidate suffering from color blindness, allegedly attempted to fraudulently clear the medical examination. It is alleged that accused No.1 contacted accused No.3 to facilitate his impersonation, and accused No.2 provided accused No.1 with the contact details of accused No.3. Accused No.3 is then alleged to have impersonated accused No.1 during the medical examination. The prosecution contends that by introducing accused No.3 to accused No.1, accused No.2 abetted the commission of the alleged offence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2110 CRL.P No. 100915 of 2022 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1- State. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and investigation records reveals that accused No.1 was apprehended during the course of the investigation, and in his confession statement, he allegedly disclosed that accused No.3 had impersonated him in the medical examination and that accused No.2 had introduced him to accused No.3. However, apart from the confession statement of accused No.1, there is no independent or corroborative material to establish the alleged involvement of accused No.2 in the commission of the offence. 5. It is well settled in law that a confession statement made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that a conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, particularly when made in police custody. In the present case, there is no other substantial evidence to connect accused No.2 to the alleged act of impersonation. Furthermore, there are no allegations or materials on record to suggest that accused No.2 had any knowledge of or actively participated in the fraudulent scheme involving accused Nos.1 and 3. Mere introduction of one person to another, without any direct involvement or mens rea, does not constitute an offence under Sections 109, 419, or 420 of the IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2110 CRL.P No. 100915 of 2022 6. In the absence of any prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against him would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner, based solely on the confession statement of a co-accused, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.444/2021 pending on the file of the IV JMFC, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.2, is hereby quashed. iii) The Trial Court shall proceed against other accused persons in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. iv) It is made clear that the observations made, if any, are for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2