Basavraj Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.06.2023 AT C.C.NO.18765/2023 ARISING OUT OF BHIMA NAGAR P.S. CRIME NO.284/2020 AGAINST PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 R/W SECTION 34, 37 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:14575 CRL.P No. 4448 of 2025

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent.

¶24

The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 419, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 109, read with Sections 120B, 34, and 37 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶25

The prosecution alleges that, in the selection process for the post of Police Constable, accused No.2 had applied for the said post. However, accused No.2 appeared in the written examination by impersonating accused No.1. The specific allegation against accused No.5 (the petitioner) is that he introduced accused No.1 to accused No.2

¶26

The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of co-accused who, in his voluntary statement, claimed that accused No.5 had introduced accused No.1 to accused No.2.

¶27

However, the voluntary statement of co-accused is not supported by any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to establish that accused No.5 conspired

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:14575 CRL.P No. 4448 of 2025

¶30

with the other accused to facilitate accused No.1’s participation in the selection process.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondentState.

¶32

The Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna -vs- Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - (2018) 8 SCC 271 has ruled as follows:

¶33

"It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general way, because whatever is considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must being with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.[Kashimira Singh v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 526 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu case (Bhuboni Sahu V. R., 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147 at p. 155.] has been cited with approval."

¶34

It is a settled principle of law that any confession made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:14575 CRL.P No. 4448 of 2025

¶37

under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless supported by corroborative material to substantiate the allegations. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely on the basis of such a confession. In the present case, even if the allegations against accused No.5 are taken at face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged against him.

¶38

Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings based solely on the voluntary statement of co-accused which is inadmissible in law— would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶39

10. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.18765/2023 pending on the file of the learned I Additional C.M.M. Court, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.5 is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

HR

Basavraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavraj v. the 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

Santhosh Hanumantha Sagar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Abhinav Lal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Veena Vs State of Karnataka

Raghav Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Harsha Vs State of Karnataka

Nitish Kashyap Vs State by Mahadevpura P. S.