the hands of victim, still the victim was forced to confine in the room, where the alleged activities were committed by deceased Krishna. It is to be noted that papers of investigation discloses that petitioners no.1 to 3 were aware about the illegal activities of sexual ravishment/ a sex racket of Krishna Bhat. Inspite of that, they have facilitate Krishna not only by their deeds but also by allowing their premises to use for such illegal activities. Abatement to be inferred from the direct or indirect incidents, circumstances and the acts of the concerned accused. From the record, it is clear that with the help of petitioners no.1 to 3, deceased Krishna Bhat had committed such ill deeds and also directly confined the victim in the premises. No doubt, the main culprit is no more, but the offence of abatement is distinct from the main offence, which was committed at the hands of deceased Krishna. This aspect is considered by both the Courts below. Considering all these facts, I does not find any fault with the order impugned to the extent of petitioners no.1 to 3, but as no role is attributed directly or indirectly at the hands of petitioners no.4 to 6, they are entitled for discharge. This fact was overlooked by both the courts below and thus committed an error in rejecting the application for discharge to the extent of petitioners no.4 to 6.
