- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1923 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRUTHYANJAYA KUMAR @ RAHUL SINGH, S/O. SATHYANANDA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.5A, 50 FEET MAIN ROAD, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. SRI. DIRAJ KUMAR S/O. GOPAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.138, 4TH CROSS, MHR LAYOUT, SIDEDAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 25.02.2025) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.1698/2018 PENDING ON LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the records in S.C.No.1698/2018 pending on LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53) and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in S.C.No.1698/2018 pending on LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-53) for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 R/w 149 of IPC, in the interest of justice." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 in S.C.No.115/2014 for offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 149 IPC on the file of the LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-53), Bengaluru. The said case was split up insofar as petitioner is concerned and the same is pending in the instant S.C.No.1698/2018 before the Trial Court, in which the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that insofar as accused Nos.4 to 7 in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 aforesaid S.C.No.115/2024 is concerned, the same ended in an order of acquittal dated 23.03.2019, which is as under: "The Police Sub-Inspector of Peenya police station has presented this charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. 2. The gist of the allegations levelled against the accused persons as per the charge sheet and other materials on record is as follows: That on 10.04.2013 at about 1.30 a.m. (midnight) the accused persons with previous ill will against Accused no.7 intended to murder complainant came near the House No.138, 4th Cross, Bhumika Layout where CWs.1 to 3 and 7 were residing and enquired with CWs.1, 2 and 3 as to where is CW.7 to which CWs.1 to 3 answered they don’t know them. Accused nos.1 to 3 abused CWs.1 to 3 in filthy language and assaulted them with knife, rods and hockey stick and causing bleeding injuries and after attempted to kill them and put life threat. Hence, the present charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the above said offences. 3. At crime stage, accused have been produced before the Committal Court and have been remanded to judicial custody and thereafter they have been released on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, the committal court after compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru against the accused. Thereafter, the matter has been assigned to this court. 4. On receipt of the committal records, summons were issued to the accused. Accordingly, accused appeared before this court. Thereafter, charge has been framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC for which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, has got examined in all 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to 13 and also got marked 4 material objects as Mos.1 to 4. Subsequently, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was framed, read over, explained and recorded. However, they have disputed the version of the prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to adduce any evidence in their defence. 5. Heard both side counsels, perused the materials on record. 6. The points that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 10.04.2013 at about 1.30 a.m. (midnight) the present accused nos.4 to 7 along with split up accused with an intention to kill CW.7 went near the house of CWs.1 to 3 and enquired about CW.7 and on being not told by CWs.1 to 3, they with an intention to kill CWs.1 to 3 abused them in filthy language and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 assaulted them with knife, rods and hockey stick and caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed offences punishable u/s.323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC? (2) What order? 7. My findings on the above points are as under: (1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative; (2) Point No.2 .. As per final order for the following: REASONS 8. Point No.1 :- The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, have examined in all 3 witnesses i.e. CWs.9, 11 and 10 as PWs.1 to 3 respectively. 9. CW.9 Dr.Anchan Vidhyashree Vittala is examined as PW.1. This witness is a doctor who treated the injured CWs.1 and 2 and issued wound certificates as per Ex.Ps.1 and 2. She says on 11.04.2013 at about 1.30 a.m. midnight CW.1 Dhirajkumar Singh accompanied by one Gaurav Kumar came with the history of assault on 10.04.2013 at 1.25 a.m. she examined the said patient and found that he sustained following injuries i.e. 1.Laceration injury measuring 5 X 2 cm at palmer aspect of left ring finger and 2. Laceration injury measuring 12 X 5 cm at dorsopalmer aspect of first web space. she has taken the x-ray which showed normal study, the patient was admitted and treated surgically, in her opinion both the above said injuries are simple injuries and fresh in nature, accordingly she issued - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 wound certificate as per Ex.P.1 and her signature is marked at Ex.P.1(a) and the above said injury can be caused if assaulted by knife. on 11.04.2013 at about 2.30 a.m. midnight CW.2 Amruthan Shu accompanied by one GauravKumar came with the complaint some known person assaulted him behind his head on 10.04.2013 at 1.25 a.m., she examined him and found no external injuries, she advised him for CT scan, but he refused, accordingly she issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.2 and her signature is at Ex.P.2(a) and due to non availability of CT Scan she cannot frame any opinion. She has been cross examined. She admitted the injuries mentioned in the Wound certificate of CW.1 may be sustained if accidentally came into contact with sharp object. 10. CW.11 B.N.Lohith, Police Inspector, Investing Officer is examined as PW.2. CW.10 E.S.Mahesh, PSI., is examined as PW.3. 11. PW.3 says on 11.04.2013 at 7 a.m. he received the complaint statement of CW.1 from Saptagiri Hospital through HC. Laxmanaiah and registered the case in Cr. No.241/2013 and sent FIR to the Court. The said complaint is marked as Ex.P.9. FIR is marked as Ex.P.10. On the same day at 7 a.m. he visited the spot and conducted the mahazar at the place shown by both CWs.2 and 3 before the panch witness i.e. CW.4 and taken the photographs and mahazar marked as Ex.P.11. Photos marked as Ex.Ps.12 and 13. He handed over the file to PW.2 for further investigation. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 12. PW.2 has stated on 12.04.2013 he received the case file from CW.10 i.e. PW.3 and conducted the investigation. On the same day he arrested the accused and recorded their voluntary statements and according to their voluntary statements, he went to the place shown by the accused with the accused and panchas at Kirloskar layout Bus stop underneath the Honge tree there was a knife, iron rods and one hockey stick and they were picked by the accused and given to him. In the presence of pachas he seized the said articles under mahazar Ex.P.5 between 5.30 to 6.10 p.m. The Material objects are marked as MOs.1 to 4. Both PWs.2 and 3 were subjected to cross examination. 13. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record except evidence of Medical Officer who has deposed to have treated CWs.1 and 2 and issued wound certificates and the injury sustained by CW.1 is stated to be simple in nature and she cannot frame any opinion about the injuries sustained by CW.2 because non availability of CT Scan. Thus the materials on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them. The evidence of Investigating officers and medical officer is not supported by the evidence of any independent witnesses. More strangely CWs.1 and 2 have not at all examined before the Court. Hence the evidence of PW.1 is not supported by the oral say of CWs.1 and 2 before the Court. The prosecution has also failed to prove the recovery of material objects alleged to be used for the commission of offences. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 14. Thus, the Court cannot believe the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 unless their evidence is corroborated by the independent witnesses coupled with the evidence of complainant the Court cannot believe the prosecution story and convict the accused. The said evidence ought to have been supported by the evidence of CW.1 i.e. complainant cum injured and also injured in the said incident CW.2 is also not at all examined by bringing him before the Court. Thus, viewed from any angle I hold the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. As such I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 15. Point No.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused nos.4 to 7 by name Naman Agarwal, Santoshkumar Singh @ Santosh Singh, Satish Kumar Rai and Sujit Kumar Singh are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. Accused Nos.4 to 7 are directed to execute personal bond along with a surety bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as required u/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C. MOs.1 to 4 are ordered to be preserved in view of the pendency of split up case against other accused persons." - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 4. In the case of Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka and Another – Crl.P.No.5376/2024 dated 19.09.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that acquittal of co-accused by the Sessions Court would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as under: “The petitioner – accused No.6 is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question a split charge sheet drawn against him in S.C.No.96/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On the night of 14.02.2015, an alleged incident leads the petitioner along with others for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC in Crime No.306/2015. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in the said matter and the concerned Court registers S.C.No.423/2015. The petitioner – accused No.6 at the relevant point in time was not available for trial and therefore, the concerned Court tried the other accused and acquitted them on the score that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. On account of non-availability of the petitioner, the concerned Court - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 draws up a split charge sheet in S.C.No.96/2022 and now is wanting to continue the trial for the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would also get acquitted, if trial is permitted in the case at hand and therefore, seeks quashment of the same on the score of parity. 5. Learned HCGP would however refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has escaped trial and should not be shown any indulgence and he should come out clean in a full blown trial, as the other accused have come out clean. She would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner not being available for trial at the relevant point in time is a matter of record. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice what is the finding qua the acquittal of other accused by the Court of Sessions in terms of its judgment dated 08.08.2022. The reason so rendered are as follows: "17. No doubt, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, during the course of cross examination of PW-1 to 3, except denial, nothing is elicited whether there is any enmity between these accused and PW-1 to 3 to incriminate in this case. But, this proceeding came to be initiated at suomoto at their own instant. Even, according to the case of the prosecution, these accused were preparing for committing dacoity in the public place - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 at about 9-15 pm. When such being the case, in the absence of corroborative evidence, by any one of the independent panch witness or eyewitnesses, solely based on the evidence of these police officers PW-1 to 3, who are the interested witnesses, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed any consisting and corroborative evidence to prove any of the alleged charges levelled against this accused No.4. Hence, it creates a serious doubt about the involvement of this accused in the alleged incident. Under all these circumstances, in my considered view, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.4 by producing consisting and corroborative evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, without any alternative, the benefit of doubt should be extended to these accused No.4 and he is entitled for acquittal. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in the "Negative" 18. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The accused No.4 is found not guilty. Hence, by acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bond of the accused No.4 and his surety stand canceled. The original record and also M.O.1 to 5 may be retained till disposal of the split up case registered against accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6." 8. The offence alleged is preparation for commission of a dacoity, it is a collective act of all the accused as is alleged. Therefore, the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 would undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner, as eventually he would get acquitted. Therefore, permitting further trial against the petitioner for the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 eventuality of getting acquitted in the light of the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 would only be a waste of precious judicial time. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 9. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows: “12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge- sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.” 13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: “As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” 14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co- accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them. 15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court. 17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.” The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 10. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.96/2022 pending before the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-59), stand quashed, qua the petitioner.” 5. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that accused Nos.4 to 7 have been acquitted by the Trial Court in S.C.No.115/2014 and consequently, by applying / invoking the doctrine of parity, the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1698/2018 against the petitioner – accused No.1 also deserve to be quashed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8372 CRL.P No. 1923 of 2025 (ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.1698/2018 (Main case in S.C.No.115/2014) pending on the file of LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-53), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w 149 of IPC insofar as the petitioner – accused No.1 is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MEG / SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38