- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4716 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. UMA N C/O DHARMARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO. 721, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, SHASTRI NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO ADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 030. AND ALSO REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 2. SMT. OBALAMMA, W/O LAKSHMAIHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO. 823, 1ST MAIN, RAJENDRA NAGARA, KORAMANGALA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.1485/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CC NO.28668/2005 AND CRIME NO.213/2005) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-62) BENGALURU REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ADUGODI POLICE STATION INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.1485/2024 (arising out of C.C.No.28668/2005 and CrimeNo.213/2005) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Anand K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is accused No.5, who gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.213/2005 along with several accused. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against the accused. The concerned Court tries accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in S.C.No.952/2005 and acquits them of the offences so alleged in terms of its order dated 21.08.2007. Since the petitioner was not available for trial, at that point in time, a split charge sheet was drawn against her in S.C.No.1485/2024 (arising out of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 C.C.No.28668/2005 and CrimeNo.213/2005) and the petitioner is now sought to be tried in the aforesaid S.C.No.1485/2024 (arising out of C.C.No.28668/2005 and CrimeNo.213/2005) for the said offences alleged, which are the ones punishable under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is before this Court on the score that findings rendered by the concerned Court acquitting accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 should enure to the benefit of the petitioner - accused No.4 as well. 4. Learned Addl. SPP would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner also has to come out clean in a full blown trial, as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have come out clean and the person who had escaped trial, should not be shown any indulgence. 5. The submission of the learned Addl. SPP would be acceptable in the first blush, what is required to be noticed is wastage of precious judicial time, as the petitioner would eventually get acquitted of the offences, as they are the ones punishable under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The concerned Court acquits the said accused on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 score that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, by rendering the following reasons: "............ The said statement is recorded on 5.8.2005 about 2 p.m. which is after a lapse of about 24 hours after the occurrence of alleged incident and the second FIR came to be issued only on 5.8.2005 on receipt of the information at about 4 p.m. in police station which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 5.8.2005 at about 9.100p.m.i.e., on the same day when the first FIR was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 4.30p.m. The delay caused in registering of the case for an offence under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and sending of the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the reaching of the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In the light of the above observation, the very giving of the statement by the declarant appears to be suspicious as no explanation is offered by the prosecution to consider the complaint lodged by PW15 and the evidence given by PW15 before the Court are false and tainted with any malafide intention either on the part of the said witness to help the real assailants. On the contrary, it creates doubt on considering the circumstances under which Ex.P4 is said to have come into existence at a belated stage, arraying the accused persons as the assailants, because of the existing enemity between the family of the accused persons and the family of the complainant. No material is placed before the Court to show that the burns found on the deceased were homicidal burns and have been caused by the accused persons. The Medical Officer who is examined as PW9 in this case and who has conducted the post-portem examination on the dead body of the deceased stated before the Court in his evidence that he did not found any other injuries on the deceases except the burn injuries and that the said burn injuries noticed by him are also possible if a person sets fire on self. He has also stated that the possibility of contusion or other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 injuries would have been present on the body of a person if such person is man handled or being assaulted by three or four persons. Therefore, the prosecution has initially failed to prove that the burn injuries found on the deceased was homicidal burns and that the accused have been caused the said burn injuries. The evidence of PWs6 to 8 being interested one cannot be relied as trustworthy. The evidence of PWs 2, 12 and 17 since contradictory to each other and creates suspicion in the mind of the Court about giving of the statement by the deceased while taking treatment in the absence of any explanation for not believing the version of PW15 by the prosecution, which has also placed its reliance on the said evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW2, 12 and 17 cannot be relied upon and cannot be made basis in holding that the deceased declarant had given the statement before them as per Ex.P4 falsely on her own accord not being influenced by others and that the said dying declaration is made in a fit state of mind by the deceased in order to hold the accused is guilty of the alleged offences punishable under Sec.323 and 302 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The material placed before the Court by the prosecution cannot be accepted as a substantive evidence in proof of the accusation leveled against the accused for the charged offences. In the result, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.323 and 302 R/w 34 of IPC. IN the result I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the negative. 16. In view of my findings on Point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The accused 1 to 3 are acquitted under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sec.323, 302 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled. Mos.1 and 2 are ordered to be preserved till the absconding accused No.4 and 5 are tried for the charge sheeted offences." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 6. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court to acquit accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 would undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner, as the allegations against the petitioner being common as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 having been acquitted after a full blown trial as quoted hereinabove, permitting further trial against the petitioner would only be as observed hereinabove is wastage of precious judicial time. 7. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 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 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, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 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 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- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 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, 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 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. 8. 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. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28013 CRL.P No. 4716 of 2026 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.1485/2024 (arising out of C.C.No.28668/2005 and CrimeNo.213/2005) pending before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-62), Benglauru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4