Malikarjun Y Babalennavar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17818 CRL.P No. 5821 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5821 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MALIKARJUN Y. BABALENNAVAR, S/O YAMANAPPA BABALENNAVAR, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (FARMER), R/O MALADINNI VILLAGE AND POST, T/Q GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 233.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VINAYKUMAR M. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THROUGH SHANTHIGRAMA POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HC, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of karnataka

¶14

VENKATESHA M.V,

¶15

AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. OFFICIAL GAZETTED, R/O ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER, 11 TH KSRP BATTALION, GADENAHALI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.22/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE HONBLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, HASSAN,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17818 CRL.P No. 5821 of 2025

¶20

ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT, FIR IN CR.NO.32/2021 AND CHARGE SHEET NO.1/2023 WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 417, 419, 465, 468, 471, 109, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent-State.

¶25

The petitioner, who has been charge sheeted for the offences for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 465, 468, 471, 109 and 120(b) read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief.

¶26

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 to 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 No.3 had introduced them.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:17818 CRL.P No. 5821 of 2025

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar

¶30

Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence¹ , has held as follows:

¶31

“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 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.”

¶32

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.

¶33

1 (2018) 8 SCC 271

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:17818 CRL.P No. 5821 of 2025

¶36

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 substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners based solely on the inadmissible confession statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.22/2024 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Hassan, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶38

The Trial Court to proceed against other accused without being influenced by the observations made in this order and the observations made in this order is only in relation to accused No.3.

¶39

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶40

RKA

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98 CT: BHK

Malikarjun Y Babalennavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malikarjun Y Babalennavar 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

Umamani K L Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Rudrappa Dundanatti @ Basavraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Mahnot Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashoka @ Hanumaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Nagesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sathishgowda @ Siddarudha M J Vs the State of Karnataka