Allowed

Puttaraju S T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024CRL.P/2517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.5 in a murder case, implicated solely through the co-accused wife's confession, sought discharge; the High Court held a co-accused's confession is inadmissible and no Section 202 or 120B elements were established, discharging him.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing discharge application quashed; petitioner accused No.5 discharged of offences alleged.

Puttaraju S T Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37323 CRL.P No. 2517 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2517 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PUTTARAJU S T @ DICHI PUTTA @ PUTTA S/O THAMMANNAGOWDA @ THAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SHAMBHUNATHAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT-573120.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN TOWN POLICE RESPONDENT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

LOKESH M J AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O JAVAREGOWDA M R R/O MARAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABEMMATHI POST, MALLIPATNA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN-573201.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2022 IN S.C.NO.54/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37323 CRL.P No. 2517 of 2024

¶18

HASSAN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 227 OF CRPC BY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER FROM THE ABOVE CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/.120-B,202 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC OF HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT IN S.C.NO.54/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner, accused No.5, 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.

¶23

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 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.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37323 CRL.P No. 2517 of 2024

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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 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.

¶29

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Danu (AIR 2000 SC 169) reiterated that the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:37323 CRL.P No. 2517 of 2024

¶32

confession of a co-accused is not evidence against other accused and is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

¶33

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.

¶34

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 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:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:37323 CRL.P No. 2517 of 2024

¶38

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶39

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.5 is discharged of the offences alleged against him.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

Puttaraju S T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaraju S T v. the 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

Sri Bettappa T Vs Sri Nataraj Venkatesh

Smt Shivani Vs Smt T Shivananjamma

Mrs B S Chudamani Vs Mr Irudayaraju @ Rajan

Sri Brs Guardian Manpower and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

Smt Prasad H v Godha Krishna Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

K. S. Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka