Sri. Bheemappa Mahadeva Hulloli, Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1609 CRL.P No. 100365 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100365 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. BHEEMAPPA MAHADEVA HULLOLI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. ADAGINAL VILLAGE AND POST, KOWJALAGI HOBLI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SADYOJAT R.BALIGATTIMATH AND SRI. BASAVARAJ P.KOTAGI, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:43 +0530

¶12

SRI. PRAVEEN C. YALIGAR OCC. POLICE OFFICER, R/AT. CID, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 REGISTERED IN CC NO.1257/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT, BELAGAVI, ARISING OUT OF IN CRIME NO.43/2021 MALAMARUTHI P.S. BELAGAVI, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 417, R/W 37 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1609 CRL.P No. 100365 of 2025

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 417 read with Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that, during the selection process for the post of police constable, accused No. 2 had applied for the said post. Allegedly, accused No. 1 participated in the written examination by impersonating accused No. 2. The specific allegation against accused No. 3 is that he introduced accused Nos. 1 and 2 to accused No. 4, who allegedly created fake documents on behalf of accused No. 2. The petitioner/accused No.3 has been implicated solely on the basis of the voluntary confession statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2, wherein they claimed that accused Nos. 3 to 5 had sent accused No. 1 to write the examination on behalf of accused No. 2 for the post of police constable.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2018) 8 SCC 271], has held as follows:

¶25

“It would be noticed that, as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general evidentiary value, because whatever is considered by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1609 CRL.P No. 100365 of 2025

¶27

court as evidence, including circumstances and probabilities, must meet the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. While a confession may be considered as evidence in a broad sense due to Section 30, it is not evidence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. As such, in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot rely solely on the confession of a co-accused. Instead, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and, after forming its opinion on the quality and effect of such evidence, may refer to the confession for assurance in reaching a conclusion of guilt. That is the effect of Section 30. This view has also been expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [1952 SCR 526: AIR 1952 SC 159: 1952 Cri LJ 839], wherein the Privy Council decision in Bhuboni Sahu v. R. [1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147] was cited with approval.”

¶28

It is a well-settled principle that any confession made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless corroborated by material evidence substantiating the allegations against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement.

¶29

In the present case, the allegation against accused No.3, even if taken at face value, does not fulfill the essential elements required to constitute the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative material to

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1609 CRL.P No. 100365 of 2025

¶31

substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶32

Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner based solely on the inadmissible confession statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1257/2022 pending on the file of the learned JMFC II Court, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶36

iii) The trial Court to proceed against the accused other in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in this order and the observations made in this order is only for the purpose of accused No.3.

¶37

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

AC Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Bheemappa Mahadeva Hulloli, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bheemappa Mahadeva Hulloli, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Exora Business Parks Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.K.Monnappa Vs Sri.K.K.Poovaiah

Dr. Natesha D B Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Balakrishna S/O. Bhimappa Bhajantri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunaths/O Chandrakaladhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Bhimappa Magadum Vs the State of Karnataka