- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103840 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAHUL, S/O CHANDRU @ CHANDRASHEKHAR GOKAK AGE. 28 YEARS R/O. SHANTTINIKETAN COLONY, SETTLEMENT, 2ND CROSS, HUBBALLI 580020. 2. MAHESH S/O IRANNA BARAKER AGE. 29 YEARS R/O. SAHADEV NAGAR, BACKSIDE OF GANESH TEMPLE, OLD HUBBALLI 580024. 3. SANDEEP @ SAGAR, S/O SHIVAPUTRA LOKAPUR, AGE. 30 YEARS, R/O. GOKUL ROAD, KOTTINGESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI 580030. 4. LAXMAN S/O PARASHURAM BALLARI, AGE. 28 YEARS, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HUBBALLI 580030. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 5. PAWAN S/O KRISHNA GOKAK, AGE. 33 YEARS, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, HUBBALLI-580030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GOKUL ROAD POLICE R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD. 2. RAMAPPA, S/O NAGAPPA DANDOLI, AGE. 37 YEARS R/O. ELECTRICAL WORKS R/O. GANGADHAR NAGAR, SETTLEMENT, 2ND CROSS, HUBBALLI 580025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS 2023), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03-07-2025 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT DHARWAD IN SPL.SC/ST NO.34/2023 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 15(A) OF SC/ST POA ACT BY THE COMPLAINANT/CW-1/RESPONDENT NO.2 BY NAME RAMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA DANDOLI VIZ., ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri K.M.Shiralli, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served with the notice and remained absent. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer. “Praying to set aside the order dated 03-07-2025 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Court Dharwad in SPL.SC/ST No.34/2023 by allowing the application filed under section 15(A) of SC/ST POA Act by the complainant/CW-1/respondent No.2 by name Ramappa s/o Nagappa Dandoli viz., Annexure-A, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are as under: Petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC and ST (POA), Act’ for short). 4. During the course of trial, an application came to be filed under Section 15(A) of SC and ST (POA) Act to produce a compact disc (‘CD’ for short) said to contain the video clippings of the murder of Sushant who is the victim in the case. The same is allowed by the learned Special Judge. 5. Validity of the same is called in question before this Court in this petition on the following grounds:  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble District and Sessions and Special Court Dharwad on the application field by the complainant under section 15(A) of SC/ST POA Act is illegal, perverse and against the facts and probabilities of this case.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the Hon'ble court gravely erred incoming to the conclusion that, the CD produced by the complainant is necessary for a proper disposal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 of the case, irrespective of fact that, he was not produced along with the charge sheet.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the court below ought to have held that, the complainant has not produced the said CD to the police during the time of investigation and even he has not filed any protest application to the charge sheet alleging that police have not produced proper material before the Hon'ble court. Even the complainant when appeared before the Special Court and also before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad on various occasions while opposing the bail applications filed by the accused persons has not raised about this production of CD along with charge sheet.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the court below ought to held that, there is no original device which recorded the clipping of footages alleged to have been circulated in the no YouTube, there are various fake footages and other matters along with fake photographs are circulating in the Bluetooth, there is genuinity of the CD in question and merely downloading some footage circulated in the Bluetooth without source of its original divide the CW-1 cannot give - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. Hence the court ought to have rejected the application by not permitting production of CD in question.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the court below ought to have held that the 65(B) certificate issued CW-1 is not legal and valid.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the court below gravely erred in passing the impugned order without applying its mind judiciously.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the application U/s 15(A) SC/ST POA Act filed by respondent No 2/complainant is amounts to abuse process of law and the reasoning given by the Hon'ble court while passing the impugned order are erroneous.  The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 submit that, the court below ought to have rejected the application filed under section 15(A) of SC/ST POA Act. 6. Sri K.M.Shiralli, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 vehemently contended that the necessary foundation has not been laid before allowing the production of the CD by the learned Special Judge, which is detrimental to the interest of the accused. 7. He would further contend that the question of production of the CD by the defacto complainant without recourse to the Investigation Agency itself is per-se wrong and that cannot be treated as additional material as is contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the order is to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously including the impugned order. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the learned Special Judge has permitted the complainant to produce the compact disc which is said to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 contain some video clippings wherein murder of Sushant is seen. 11. Admittedly, the Investigation Agency did not choose to seize the same during the course of investigation. Therefore that cannot be the part of the charge sheet materials. 12. Mere production of the compact disc would not take the seat of proof. If at all if the complainant or the prosecution agency is required to rely upon the said compact disc, necessarily they will have to make proper application before the Court seeking permission to rely upon the same and in which case, necessarily the objections of the accused is to be entertained. 13. Mere production of the CD by the defacto complainant cannot be set aside by exercising inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. However, it is made clear that mere production of the CD would not take the seat of proof unless the source - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:182 CRL.P No. 103840 of 2025 from which the clippings have been transferred on to a compact disc is established and necessary certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is placed on record that too, through prosecution in accordance with law. 15. With that observation, following order is passed. ORDER Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 31