Allowed

Ramesha @ Ramu @ Kovi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024CRL.P/1529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.7 in a murder case sought discharge, being implicated only through accused No.1's confession that he had once been approached to kill her husband but did not. Holding a co-accused's confession is not evidence and essential ingredients of Section 202 IPC were absent, the High Court quashed the dismissal and discharged him from proceedings under Sections 120B and 202 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged of offences alleged; impugned order dated 27.12.2022 in SC No.54/2020 quashed and Section 227 Cr.PC discharge application allowed.

Ramesha @ Ramu @ Kovi Ravi Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30679 CRL.P No. 1529 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMESHA @ RAMU @ KOVI RAMA S/O SANNARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BETTADA SAMUDRAVALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

¶10

PRESENTLY R/O GURUMARANAHALLI HOSURAAMMANA TEMPLE BEGURU ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND ALSO 10^TH CROSS, K.R. PURAM, HASSAN-573201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

(BY SRI. MADHU M.T.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN CITY POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

LOKESH M.J., S/O JAVAREGOWDA M R AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:30679 CRL.P No. 1529 of 2024

¶19

R/O MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABAMMATHI POST MALLIPATNA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED )

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2022 IN S.C.NO.54/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.PC BY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER FROM THE ABOVE CASE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 202 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC OF HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE RP.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, accused No.7, who faces charges for offenses punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201, and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court.

¶27

The prosecution's case is that accused No.1, the wife of the deceased, harbored animosity because the properties were given to the second wife. She conspired with accused Nos.2 to 4 and paid a sum of Rs.10 lakh as a supari to murder her husband. Accused Nos.3 and 4 destroyed the DVR and CCTV footage, and accused Nos.2 to 4 committed the murder by illegally trespassing

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30679 CRL.P No. 1529 of 2024

¶29

into the house. Accused No.1, apprehended during the investigation, confessed that she had contacted the petitioner at one point to kill her husband. However, the petitioner did not carry out the crime and by not disclosing this information, allegedly committed offenses under Sections 202, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

The petitioner's counsel argues that the petitioner was implicated solely based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1. In the absence of any corroborative material establishing the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offenses, the continuation of the criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the legal process. The counsel further contends that the allegation that the petitioner failed to disclose the intention of the accused to commit the murder does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute an offense under Section 202 of the IPC.

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet material reveals the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offenses. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations should be examined during the trial, not in this petition.

¶32

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties.

¶33

The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed. The trial judge noted that accused No.1, in her

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:30679 CRL.P No. 1529 of 2024

¶36

confession statement, admitted that the petitioner conspired to kill her husband. The implication of the petitioner rests solely on the confession statement of accused No.1.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Danu (AIR 2000 SC 169) reiterated that the confession of a co-accused is not evidence against other accused and is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

¶38

Section 202 of the IPC states that anyone who, knowing or having reason to believe that an offense has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information relating to that offense which they are legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending to six months, or with a fine, or both. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner, fully knowing that accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the murder, failed to inform the police, except that at one point, accused No.1 contacted the petitioner to kill her husband. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the offense under Section 202 of the IPC, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.

¶39

Section 120B of the IPC deals with punishment for criminal conspiracy. To constitute the offense of abetment, one must demonstrate clear and proximate action between the alleged abetment and the commission of the offense. There must be direct or indirect evidence to establish the abetment of the alleged offense. Therefore, in the absence of corroborative material to

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:30679 CRL.P No. 1529 of 2024

¶42

substantiate that the petitioner had earlier conspired with the other accused to kill the husband of accused No.1, prosecuting the petitioner for an offense under Section 120B would be an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) The impugned order dated 27.12.2022 in SC No.54/2020 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC is hereby quashed and the application is allowed and the petitioner - accused No.7 is discharged of the offences alleged against him.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

RHS

Ramesha @ Ramu @ Kovi Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha @ Ramu @ Kovi Ravi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveed Ahmeed Vs Range Forest Officer and Surveyor

Mrs. Bhajantri Henrica Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Girish S Palaskar Vs the State of Karnataka

Academy of Liberal Education (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Annaiah Krishnamurthy Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.