Allowed¶38

Karthik v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2025CRL.P/4773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 CrPC petition allowed; abuse of process of law; acquittal of co-accused; benefit of co-accused acquittal; Section 40 to 44 Indian Evidence Act; hostile witness; injured complainant turned hostile; Sections 324, 307, 435, 504 read with Section 34 IPC; attempt to murder; split charge sheet; absconding accused; Section 25 Indian Evidence Act 1872; custodial confession inadmissible; remote probability of conviction; SC No.10/2021 Chikkaballapura; C.C.No.953/2020 Bagepalli; Hemant Chandangoudar; CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in SC No.10/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, insofar as they relate to petitioner/accused No.1, quashed. ¶38

Karthik Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in SC No.10/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, insofar as they relate to petitioner/accused No.1, quashed.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1 amounts to an abuse of process warranting quashing, given that the co-accused stood acquitted on substantially similar allegations and the injured complainant had turned hostile, leaving probability of conviction remote and bleak. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

When there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused person, and the other accused is acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

While the judgment of acquittal of a co-accused is not admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and its benefit cannot be extended to a co-accused, that proposition applies where the material witnesses have not been examined; here the injured witness was examined and turned hostile.

¶35

Key takeaways

On the ground that the complainant turned hostile and the prosecution failed to establish either sustaining of injuries by the complainant or any attempt to commit murder, and the probability of conviction appears remote and bleak, it is just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings; continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.ratio¶36
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; an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely on the basis of a confession statement (stated as settled principle without case-specific confession particulars).obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC allowed. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings in SC No.10/2021 (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura) insofar as they related to petitioner/accused No.1, charged under Sections 324, 307, 435, 504 read with Section 34 IPC for an incident of 13.10.2019 near DVG road, Bagepalli. Grounds: (i) the charge sheet had been split up as accused No.1 was absconding and accused Nos.2 and 3, tried on substantially similar charges, were acquitted, the trial Court finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) although a co-accused's acquittal is not admissible within the meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and does not automatically extend its benefit, that proposition applies only where material witnesses were not examined - here the injured complainant was examined and turned hostile, denying the occurrence; (iii) consequently, the probability of conviction appeared remote and bleak, making continued prosecution an abuse of process. Stated in passing (obiter): a confession in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and an accused cannot be tried solely on a confession statement.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARTHIK, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A JILAKARAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶13

BY BAGEPALLI POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 01.

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

L.N. CHETHAN KUMAR, S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORK IN INDIAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DAVANAGERE, R/A KSRTC DIPO ROAD, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.953/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT BAGEPALLI WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXUREA WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 307, 435, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024

¶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

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent - State. Service of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶23

The petitioner/accused No.1 who is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 324, 307, 435, 504 read with Section 34 IPC is before this court seeking relief.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2019, when CW.1 was proceeding in a twowheeler near DVG road, Bagepalli, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 with previous grudges followed by CW.1 with an intention to kill him. They surrounded CW.1, abused him in filthy language, and accused No.1 tried to stab him with a knife on his chest and stomach with an intention to kill him. At that time CW.1, try to avoid stabbing, the knife injured his left hand causing simple injuries.

¶25

Since accused No.1 was absconding, the charge sheet was split up, and the trial proceeded only against accused Nos.2 and 3. After appreciating the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024

¶28

evidence and record, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly passed a judgment of acquittal.

¶29

The charges against accused No.1 are substantially similar to those against accused Nos.2 and 3, with the material distinction being the specific allegation that accused No.1 attempted to murder the complainant. When the complainant sought to escape, he sustained a knife injury to his left hand. The complainant subsequently turned hostile and completely denied the occurrence of the alleged incident during trial proceedings.

¶30

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.

¶31

It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and other accused person, and when

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024

¶34

other accused is acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner.

¶35

It is also settled law that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused. But the said proposition of law is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined.In the instance, the injured witness was examined and he turned hostile.

¶36

On the ground that the complainant has turned hostile, and the prosecution has failed to establish either the sustaining of injuries by the complainant or any attempt to commit murder, and the probability of conviction appears remote and bleak if the petitioner were subjected to trial, it would be just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024

¶41

ii. The impugned proceedings in SC No.10/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK

Karthik v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree Vs State of Karnataka

Venkateshalu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Yogendra Mahara Vs State of Karnataka

Ramu Shetagar Vs the State

Laxman Parannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sumanth Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka