- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3783 CRL.P No. 100870 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100870 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUJEET S/O. GOPAL PUJARI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. INTERIOR DESIGNER, R/AT. ALPA RAJARAJESHWARI COMPLEX, CAMBER CHADAV ROAD, NEAR SURYANARAYANA TEMPLE, MAROLI, PO. KNAKANDI, TQ AND DIST. MANGALORE-575005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION, GADAG, DIST. DHARWAD, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 31.12.2019 AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER IN GADAG TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.48/2014 SUBSEQUENTLY AROSE IN CC NO.2972/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT, AT GADAG FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 395,402,457,511,109 OF IPC. 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: 2025.03.01 12:14:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3783 CRL.P No. 100870 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner/accused No.2 who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 402, 457, 511 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 24.03.2014, accused Nos.3 to 5 and other accused had made conspiracy to commit robbery of money and gold belonging to the Muthoot Fincorp Finance Company (for short, ‘the Finance’). At 00.45 hours with an intention of committing robbery of money and gold belonging to the Finance, accused Nos.3 to 5 along with other accused persons broke the lock of the shutter of the Finance and have trespassed therein and further broke open the back-side wall of the Finance, and were further found in possession of the deadly weapons. Thereafter, the first informant went to Gadag Police Station and filed a complaint. 3. The petitioner/accused No.2 was absconding, the charge sheet was spilt up and trial was conducted against accused Nos.3 to 5. The prosecution examined all the material witnesses and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the said accused by recording that, the prosecution has not established the guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The judgment of acquittal has attained finality. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the attempt to commit robbery and petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the co-accused. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3783 CRL.P No. 100870 of 2025 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence1, 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 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. It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and other accused person, and when other accused is acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner. 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3783 CRL.P No. 100870 of 2025 7. It is also settled law that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused. But the said proposition of law is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined. 8. The Trial Court acquitted accused No.3 to 5 on the ground that the prosecution did not establish that the said accused attempted to commit robbery. It would be futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial since, the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. So as to prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain parity, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2972/2019, on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC I Court, At Gadag, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17