Partly allowed

Sri T Sadashiva v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2013CRL.RP/481/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge HC revisited discharge order of Sessions Court. Held reliance on unrelated accused's voluntary statement and ignoring investigation records erroneous. Set aside order and remanded for reconsideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; acquittal order set aside; Sessions Judge directed to reconsider discharge plea under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after hearing parties.

Sri T Sadashiva Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.481 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T SADASHIVA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O POLICE QUARTERS SHARADHA NAGAR BEHIND TALUK OFFICE TIPATUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 201

¶9

... PETITIONER.

¶10

(By Sri. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORATAGERE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560 001

¶13

2.SRI T T SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE THIMMAIAH

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O THUMBADI VILLAGE KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 129

¶16

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 7TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA PURA TUMKUR CITY TUMKUR 572 133

¶17

3.SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O T T SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O THUMBADI VILLAGE KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRCT 572 129.

¶18

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 7TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA PURA TUMKUR CITY TUMKUR 572 133. ... RESPONDENTS.

¶19

(BY SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1, SHRI B.S. HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE DATED 29.05.2012 OF RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3, WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-V, MADHUGIRI IN S.C.NO.268/2011 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302,201,114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE V F.T.C., MADHUGIRI TO FRAME CHARGE AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 FOR OFFENCES U/S 302,201,114 OF IPC.

¶21

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The learned Sessions Judge has discharged Accused

¶25

Nos.4 and 5 in S.C.No.268/2011 pending trial, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶27

learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the

¶28

respondents and I have gone through the impugned order.

¶29

The learned Sessions Judge has referred to the

¶30

provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which provides for discharge of the accused in a trial before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge had not referred to contents of investigation records to hold that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against Accused Nos.4 and 5. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the voluntary statement made by

¶31

¶32

Accused No.1 to hold that Accused No.1 alone had committed the murder of his mother and sister. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the First Information does not reveal the names of Accused Nos.4 and 5.

¶33

The approach of the learned Sessions Judge in relying on the voluntary statement of Accused No.1 (confessional statement), to hold that Accused No.1 alone had decided to kill his mother and sister, is not permissible by law for discharging the accused or framing the charges. Above all, the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the settled principle of law that confession statement made by the accused before the police cannot be used against him. Such statement can be used within the permissible limits under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge, without referring to the investigation records, has recorded an omnibus finding that there is no sufficient material evidence collected by the investigation to prove that the other accused had helped Accused No.1 to commit double murder. The learned Sessions

¶34

¶35

Judge has ignored the provisions of law that in order to frame charges or discharge an accused, he has to consider the investigation records. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have raised various contentions.

¶37

In my considered opinion, this court while exercise of revisional jurisdiction, cannot take upon the task of examining the entire investigation records to arrive at a conclusion either under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. In the discussion made supra, I have held that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, I pass the following:

¶38

O R D E R :

¶39

The Revision Petition is accepted. The impugned order is set-aside. The learned Sessions Judge shall reconsider the

¶40

¶41

plea of discharge in accordance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., after hearing the learned counsel for the

¶42

parties.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sri T Sadashiva v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Sadashiva v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Nathumal Lakhani Vs the State of Karnataka

B Meenakshi Vs Arathi

Sri Loki @ Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Chandra Naik Vs K R Manjunatha Sastri

Narayana Rao Vs Raghavendra Udupa

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs State by Extension Police Station