- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100048 OF 2020 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, CHITTAWADIGI POLICE STATION, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP) AND: TELLABACCHU RAJU @ RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD @ RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O. LATE NARASIMHA RAO, AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O. VEDULAPALLI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, (ANDHRA PRADESH)-522101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL AND SRI. S.A.SONDUR, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CRPC PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.03.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5073/2018 Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.01 10:41:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.03.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5073/2018 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal by the State is directed against the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed in S.C. No.5073/2018 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), whereby the said sessions case instituted by the appellant-State against the respondent/accused No.4 (split up) for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has resulted in the acquittal of the respondent. 2. Heard learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 respondent/accused No.4 on record and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that, according to the prosecution, on 02.03.2000, at 3.30 a.m., the respondent/accused No.4, along with four other co-accused are alleged to have entered the house of the complainant, removed the window and air cooler, entered the bedroom of C.W.1 and C.W.2, and assaulted C.W.1, and committed dacoity of gold, silver, cash and golden articles in a value of Rs.56,800/- and are alleged to have committed the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of IPC. 4. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant-P.W.1, a FIR in Crime No.13/2000 was registered by the police authority pursuant to which cognizance was taken against respondent/accused No.4 and four other persons. 5. The undisputed material on record will also indicate that insofar as the remaining accused persons are concerned, separate proceedings S.C. No.118/2004 culminated in acquittal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 of the remaining co-accused persons vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2005. Under these circumstances, the trial Court came to the conclusion that by virtue of the acquittal of the remaining co-accused in S.C. No.118/2004 vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2005, the respondent/accused No.4, by virtue of invocation of doctrine of parity, was entitled to be acquitted in the impugned proceedings also especially when the allegations made against the respondent/accused No.4 and all other co-accused persons pertaining to the offence of dacoity with common intention, and thereby the respondent was also entitled to be acquitted. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Trial Court held as follows: “8. The learned Counsel appearing for accused No.4 submitted that, in the main case in S.C.118/2004, the other co-accused were already acquitted, where the evidence is recorded by prosecution. The learned Defence Counsel filed memo stating that she is willing to adopt the same evidence recorded In S.C.118/2004 earlier. The learned PP consented for adopting the evidence recorded in S.C.118/2004 earlier. Hence, in view of submission of both parties, the evidence recorded in S.C.118/2004 is adopted. The learned Counsel appearing for accused No.4 filed an application U/S 232 of Cr.P.C alongwith citation reported in 2001(3) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 of K.L.J-551 alongwith Judgment copy in S.C.No.118/2004 and insisted to comply the direction of Hon'ble High Court and to acquit the accused No.4. The learned P.P. orally opposed. On perusal of the Judgment in the main case, it indicates that, my learned Predecessor has acquitted the A-1, 2 and 5 for the offence punishable U/S 395 of I.P.C. 9. On perusal of Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohammed Iliyaz V/s State of Karnataka, wherein, their Lordships of our own Hon'ble High Court made the following observations. 1. State Public Prosecutor to take notice. The matter was taken up for final hearing. In the present proceedings, the continuation of trial against the petitioner in CC No. 1104 of 1998 is challenged on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulbarga. 2. The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge- sheet was laid against the other available accused 1 to 3 who faced trial in SC No. 24 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 1 to 3. The judgment of the Sessions Judge produced discloses that all the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge-sheet. In view of the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3, the petitioner contends that the trial whatever proposed to be held against him, in the ultimate analysis, cannot have any different result other than the acquittal handed out to accused 1 to 3. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1104 of 1998. 3. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon the ruling of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State, 81 (1999) DLT 197=111 (1999) CCR 707=2000 (1) Crimes 73 (Del.). In the said decision the rulings of the Supreme Court are also referred to and followed. In para 4 it is held thus: "On perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 19.1.1998, it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries substained by, him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (P.W. 2) and Smt. Asha Rani- (P.W. 5) (wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 123/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at stage of Section 227 of the Code itself." In the instant case also the full-fledged trial was held against accused 1 to 3 in respect of the same offence and they were acquitted. 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 in S.C. No. 24 of 1998. Therefore, in that view of the matter the proceeding in C.C. No. 1104 of 1998 is quashed. 10. The above referred Judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Herein the case also, the main accused i.e., A-1, 2 and 5 were already acquitted by the competent Court after full-fledged trail. The evidence against all accused person is common indivisible and inseparable, this accused i.e., A-4 is the absconder. However, after lapse of 14 years, he was secured and brought before the Court. As mandated by their Lordships of our own Hon'ble High Court, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by prosecution in the earlier case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 in S.C.No.118/2004. Under the facts and circumstance of this case, keeping in view of the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, this Court left with no other option except to record an Order of acquittal in par with the other co-accused. Hence, above point is answered accordingly and I proceed to pass the following. ORDER Invoking provision U/S 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.4 Tellaboccha Raju @ Rajendra Prasad S/o Narasimha Rao, aged about 57 years, is acquitted for the offence punishable U/S 395 of I.P.C. He is set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Issue release Order accordingly. Keep the property and records intact to be used in the split up case against the other co-accused.” 6. As it is clear from the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Iliyas Vs. State of Karnataka1 coupled with the material on record will indicate that after a full-fledged trial based on common indivisible and inseparable evidence, the respondent, who was earlier absconding, and case against him having been split him, was brought before the Court after a 1 (2001)3 Kar.L.J. 551 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9369-DB CRL.A No. 100048 of 2020 lapse of 14 years and having found that the evidence qua respondent as well as the remaining co-accused was indivisible and inseparable, the Trial Court gave the benefit of doctrine of parity qua the respondent/accused No.4 and consequently acquitted him for the alleged offence. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation, reconsideration of the entire material on record and categorical finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court particularly bearing in mind the fact that the acquittal of remaining co-accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse, capricious nor can it be said to have occasioned in failure of justice warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29