- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12638 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VISHAL KUMAR S/O JAGADISH SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT EWS, KUNJATTHABAIL, DEVINAGAR, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAVOOR POLICE STATION, MANGALURU - 575 015. REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.14/2024 REGISTERED BY KAVOOR P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in SC No.14/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 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.77/2021 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 acquittal dated 30.10.2024. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 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.77/2021. The same is extracted as under: "18. On considering the entire papers available on record and the evidence adduced by all the witness, it is relevant to note that in this case C.W.5, C.W.7 to C.W.10 have been given up by the prosecution side. Further during the evidence, P.W.1 who is the complainant and police officer, he deposing that he has not called Panchas from the local as the shops were closed and admitted that in Ex.P.2 it is not mentioned as to which police caught which accused and that in Ex.P.2 it is not mentioned that said accused were planning to loot people coming from Airport, raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.1 deposing that he has not issued notice to the panchas and admitting that there is no writing as to police has searched themselves before conducting search of alleged accused persons, also raises doubt. Seizure - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 Panchanama witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposing against the case of the prosecution and turning hostile raises doubt. Further Police witness P.W.3 deposing that in Ex.P.1 Mahazar it is not mentioned as who caught which accused, nor he has stated it in the statement and that they have not called the local persons to come as panchas and notice was not issued to the panchas, raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.3 deposing that before the search of accused persons they did not conduct their own search, goes to the crux of the case and it can not be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. On going through the prosecution case, it can be seen that P.W.3 and P.W.5 have turned hostile and not supported in toto, to the case of the prosecution. Further panchanama witness although have been examined, but the various discrepancies in the evidence of the pancha witnesses raises doubt on the case of the prosecution and it cannot be taken that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 20. Further the panchanaama which are at Ex.P.1 dated 07.10.2016, is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, police witnesses deposing that no independent witness are made as panchas who reside near to the spot, this aspect also raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further, evidence shows there is nothing incriminating deposed by the witness so as to say the ingredients of section 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, can be said to be proved beyond all reasonable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 doubt. Further, by the evidence of panchanama witnesses, nowhere it has come forward that accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 were possessing articles as M.O.1 to M.0.3 and assembled on the alleged date. Further no independent witness has been made witness in the charge sheet to support the say of the prosecution. Further the men's rea for driving accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6, to commit the offence has to be established by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated, is not seen in this case and not supported by cogent evidence. Further the material objects which are seized by the police, are not sent for F.S.L to know about the finger prints on them, shows that the prosecution was not successful to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and further in this case there was no sufficient evidence to hold that accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6, has committed the offence. Further more the material objects were seized from accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 is also not established by the evidence of prosecution case. Further, to show that accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 possessed M.O.1 to M.0.3 and assembled at the spot and nothing much is seen in the charge sheet material. Further although the complaint is that accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 possessed M.O.1 to M.Ο.3 and assembled at the spot, nothing is elicited by pancha witness, hence without the support of independent witness, it cannot be said that the say of police witness can be believed in toto as P.W.2 and and P.W.5 have turned hostile and nothing incriminating is adduced by them. Further prosecution is not able to show that this accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6, possessed M.O.1 to M.0.3 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 assembled at the spot, as it is not coming forth in the evidence of witness nor corroborated. Further the ingredients of section 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code are not proved as against this accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 by the prosecution in this case. Further no independent witness is examined in this case and other police witness witnesses in this case have also not deposed so as to say that charges against accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 is proved beyond all reasonable doubt as nothing incriminating is coming out from the evidence of any independent witness and further about the involvement of accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 in the said offence, all these aspects raises doubt on the case of the prosecution." "22. Here in this case, the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6, even the intention for the said offence is also not coming forth in the evidence of all the witnesses. The major discrepancies in this case goes to show that the case is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the P.W.2 and P.W.5 have turned hostile and not adduced in the favor of the prosecution case. The ingredients of section 402 and 399 of Indian Penal Code, are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 possessed M.O.1 to M.0.3 and assembled at the spot for committing dacoity as alleged, all these ingredients are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the concern for today's world that offences against society has to be taken serious note of. But when the prosecution fails to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 raise the curtains of doubt, no reliance can be placed on the witnesses, to prove the offense against accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 6 to prove that they made preparation and assembled for committing dacoity, all these ingredients are not proved as per section 402 and 399 of Indian Penal Code." 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.77/2021, has submitted that in the said case, the other co-accused, who faced identical allegations and were tried on the same set of evidence, in view of splitup charge sheet were acquitted by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2024. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 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 relevant portions of the judgment in S.C.No.77/2021 culled out supra, which clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the prosecution case and the substantial benefit that must accrue to the present petitioner as a co- accused. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Sessions Judge observed that key prosecution witnesses, namely C.W.5, C.W.7 to C.W.10, were not produced, and that material contradictions and lapses in the police evidence including the failure to summon independent Panch witnesses, discrepancies in the Seizure Panchanama, and lack of proper documentation raised significant doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. The judgment noted that the evidence adduced failed to establish which accused were apprehended by which police officials and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 whether the accused were planning any unlawful act, thereby casting serious doubt on the case against all the accused, including the present petitioner. 6. Further, as extracted from paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, the Sessions Judge elaborated that several witnesses, including P.W.3 and P.W.5, turned hostile, and the inconsistencies in the evidence of Panch witnesses further undermined the prosecution's case. The judgment specifically highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove the possession of alleged material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.3) by the accused, their assembly at the alleged spot, and the mens rea necessary for the commission of offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. 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. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 7. Paragraph 22 of the judgment further reinforces this position, noting that the prosecution could not establish the intention or participation of accused nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 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. The judgment unequivocally holds that all ingredients of Sections 399 and 402 IPC were not proved beyond 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 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.77/2021. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.14/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned, are quashed; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36104 CRL.P No. 12638 of 2025 (iii) The Jail Superintendent, District Prison, Mangaluru, is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 83