Allowed¶51

Mohammed Thanzeer v. State by Uppinangady Police Station

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025CRL.P/7631/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 CrPC; inadmissibility of co-accused confessional statements without corroboration; abuse of process; Section 25 and Section 27, Evidence Act 1872; Sections 341, 392, 397, 511, 120-B IPC; reliance on Surinder Kumar Khanna (2018) 8 SCC 271 and Badrul Muneer Crl.P.No.4263/2020; accused not named in FIR; no recovery from accused; Karnataka High Court; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; S.C.No.5025/2021; Crime No.98/2020 Uppinangady Police Station; petitioner Mohammed Thanzeer.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in S.C.No.5025/2021 (Crime No.98/2020, Uppinangady Police Station) against the petitioner quashed; I.A.1/2024 (stay) disposed of as not surviving. ¶51

Mohammed Thanzeer Vs State by Uppinangady Police Station — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in S.C.No.5025/2021 (Crime No.98/2020, Uppinangady Police Station) against the petitioner quashed; I.A.1/2024 (stay) disposed of as not surviving.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.5025/2021 against the petitioner (accused No.5), who was not named in the FIR, from whom nothing was recovered, and who was arraigned solely on the confessional statements of co-accused Nos.1 to 4 without corroboration, deserve to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶32

Court's answer

It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The charge-sheet against the petitioner is based solely on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused Nos.1 to 4, without any corroboration, and the weapon was not recovered from the petitioner.

¶34

Key takeaways

A mere confessional statement of a co-accused cannot be used against another accused so long as there is no corroborative material (following Badrul Muneer, which followed the Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna).ratio¶45
Continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner tantamounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference by the High Court; the proceedings qua the petitioner were therefore quashed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC allowed (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., High Court of Karnataka, 15.01.2025). Accused No.5 in S.C.No.5025/2021 (Crime No.98/2020, Uppinangady Police Station; Sections 341, 392, 397, 511, 120-B IPC) was neither named in the FIR dated 27/28.10.2020 nor was any weapon recovered from him; the charge-sheet rested solely on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused Nos.1 to 4 without corroboration. Following Badrul Muneer v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.4263/2020, which followed Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271, the Court held that a co-accused's confessional statement cannot be used against another accused absent corroborative material; co-accused statements are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 absent a Section 27 recovery. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of process; proceedings against the petitioner were quashed and I.A.1/2024 was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7631 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED THANZEER S/O ABDUL SATHAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NEAR BADAGABELLUR SCHOOL, BADAGABELLUR, BANTWALA PRESENTLY R/AT DODDAJE HOUSE, KADESHAVAALYA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 225.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE BY UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION UPPINANGADY, MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

DEEPAK G SHETTY S/O GOPALA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT PADEBIDRI HOUSE, BILIYURU, PERNE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶16

BANTWALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 325.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.5025/2021 IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PUTTUR IN CR.NO.98/2020 UPPINANGADI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 397, 392, 511, 120(B) OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is by accused No.5 seeks quashing of criminal proceedings in S.C.No.5025/2021, on the file of V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Puttur, in Crime No.98/2020, registered by Uppinangady Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 392, 397, 511, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1 and perused the material

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶27

on record. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the proceedings.

¶28

In addition to urging various contentions in the petition and referring to material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the FIR dated 27/28.10.2020 in order to point out that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the said FIR. It is pointed out that subsequently though the weapon said to have been used for commission of the crime was not recovered from accused No.5 and the same was recovered from accused Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner - accused No.5 has been arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet based solely on the alleged confessional statements of accused Nos.1 to 4, without there being any corroborative material in this regard. It is further submitted that, in the light of the well settled position of law that confessional statement of co-accused cannot be used against the other accused as held by the Apex Court in "Surinder Kumar

¶29

Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence", reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271, as well as by this Court in " Badrul Muneer Vs. State of Karnataka and Another"

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶32

in Crl.P.No.4263/2020, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

¶33

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record, that the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. However, subsequently the weapon said to have been used for commission of the crime has not been recovered from the custody/possession of the petitioner, so also the charge-sheet is based solely on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused Nos.1 to 4 without there being any corroboration in this regard.

¶35

It is an undisputed fact that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he informed accused Nos.1 to 4 about the movement of the complainant resulting in accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly committing the aforesaid offence. Under identical circumstances, in Badrul Muneer (supra), this Court held as under:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶38

"7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and the prosecution also not disputes the fact that this accused had been arraigned as accused No.4 based on the statement of the co-accused. Having perused the material, there is no any recovery from this petitioner and the coaccused statements are in-admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The co-accused statement is also hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

¶39

8. The Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271, held that in paragraph No.14, which reads as follows:

¶40

“14. In the present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another coaccused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶43

him. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence.”

¶44

9. The Apex Court also comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. In the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, it is not appropriate to continue the proceedings against this petitioner without any recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the material collected by the State is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872."

¶45

In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above and in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Badrul Muneer (supra) which has followed earlier Judgment of the Apex Court to the effect that mere confessional statement of co-accused cannot be used against another accused so long as there is no corroborative material, I am of the view that, continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner tantamounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present Petition.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:1334 CRL.P No. 7631 of 2024

¶48

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.5025/2021, on the file of V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Puttur, in Crime No.98/2020, registered by Uppinangady Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 392, 397, 511, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed.

¶52

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A.1/2024 seeking stay,

¶53

does not survive for consideration and as such, the same stands disposed of.

¶54

SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Mohammed Thanzeer v. State by Uppinangady Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Thanzeer v. State by Uppinangady Police Station

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

Smt Hamsaveni Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Naima Akthar Nagaria Vs State of Karnataka

P Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Satisha Vs Sri Venakteshmurthy T

Ramesh a Vs the State of Karnataka

R Lakshmakka Vs H Siddesh