Harish M R Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 475 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 512 OF 2025

¶6

IN CRL.RP No. 475/2025:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HARISH M.R S/O RAMEGOWDA M AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT ARKALGUD TALUK MALLINATHAPURA HASSAN KARNATAKA - 573 133 (AS PER CHARGESHEET HARISHA H.R AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE RAMNATHAPURA HOBLI R/O KEB ROAD ARAKALGUD TOWN)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY MS. TEJASWINI V, ADV., FOR SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KONANUR PS REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 IN S.C.NO.222/2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

IN CRL.RP NO. 512/2025:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SURESH A.R S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ARAKALAGUD TALUK ALLAPATNA HULIKALLU, HASSAN KARNATAKA - 573 142 (AS PER CHARGESHEET SURESH S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT ALLAPATNA VILLAGE MALLIPATTANA HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK)

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY KUM. TEJASWINI V, ADV., FOR SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADV.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KONANUR P.S. REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶27

...RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶29

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 03.03.2025 IN SC.NO.222/2015, ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302,201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Accused Nos.3 and 5 in S.C.No.222/2015, pending before the Court of III Additional District and Session Judge at Hassan, arising out of Crime No.280/2014 registered by Konanuru Police Station, Hassan District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 read with Section 34 of IPC are before this Court in these two Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C assailing the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in S.C. No.222/15 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C,

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶38

FIR in Crime No.280 of 2014 was registered on the basis of the first information dated 27.11.2004 received from Smt. M. K. Manjula, PW1, wife of deceased Jagadish. According to the prosecution on 27.11.2014 at about 11.00 a.m, CW.17 allegedly had informed brother-in-law of the first informant, namely Iregowda that dead body of her husband was found in a nearby land. Immediately thereafter PW1 had rushed to the

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

spot and had found the dead body of her husband. Since she suspected her brother-in-law Kumar/accused no.4 and Harish/accused no.5, she had approached the police station and based on her first information, FIR was registered initially against five persons. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused no.1-Paramesh alias Shivamurthy and accused no.2 Paramesh alias Parmi. During the course of trial, after PW1 was partially examined-in-chief, application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, was filed by the prosecution, which was allowed by the Trial Court by Order dated 05.09.2017. The said order was set aside by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1045 of 2017 connected with Criminal Revision Petition No.1055 of 2017 by order dated 10.11.2017 and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court. Subsequently, the Trial Court once again had allowed the said application by order dated 03.10.2018 and the said order was set aside by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1316 of 2018 by order dated 22.03.2019 and the matter was once again remitted to the Trial Court. Thereafter, further evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded and vide the order impugned, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, accused nos.3 and 5 are before this Court in these two petitions.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. PW1 was partially examined when the Trial Court had earlier allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. After remand, PW1 has not stated anything about involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged offences. Insofar as PWs.2 and 3 are concerned, they are hearsay witnesses, who have only stated that accused nos.1 and 2 had spoken about the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. The aforesaid evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is not sufficient to ask the petitioner to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly she prays to allow the petitions.

¶47

Per contra , learned HCGP has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that having regard to the evidence which has come on record after PWs.1 to 3 were examined before the Trial Court the application under Section

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

319 of Cr.P.C has been rightly allowed. Accordingly, he prays to

¶52

dismiss the petitions.

¶53

Section 319 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:-

¶54

319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶55

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

¶56

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶57

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—

¶58

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

¶59

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

It is not in dispute that earlier two orders passed by

¶63

the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 of Cr.P.C was set aside by this Court and the matter was remitted to consider the application afresh after evidence of some more witnesses is recorded by the Trial Court. As on the date the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C was allowed for the second time on 03.10.2018, PW1 was only partially examined. This Court having found the evidence that had come on record during the course of partial examination-in-chief of PW1 was not sufficient to summon accused nos.3 to 5 to stand trial for a serious offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, had set aside the said order dated 03.10.2018 and had remitted the matter to consider the application afresh after the entire evidence of PW1 is recorded and the Trial Court was also directed to examine any other witnesses to satisfy itself for the purpose of adding the accused in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - (2014) 3 SCC 92 .

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

After remittal of the application filed under Section

¶67

319 of Cr.P.C, for the second time, PW1 was further examined in-chief on 13.06.2022. Except stating that she had not given any further statement before the police that accused 4 and 5 had not participated in the present crime, she has not stated anything else. Therefore, it is apparent that PW.1 has not stated anything as against the proposed accused namely accused nos.3 to 5 during the course of her further examination- in-chief on 13.06.2022 which would make out a prima-facie case against the proposed accused for summoning them to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC along with accused nos.1 and 2, who have charge sheeted in the present case.

¶68

The prosecution has also examined PWs.2 and 3 thereafter on 16.04.2022 and 06.05.2022 . Perusal of the examination-in-chief of PWs.2 and 3 would go to show that they are hearsay witnesses and these two witnesses have stated that when they had gone to police station, accused nos.1 and 2 were present in the police station along with accused no.3. Accused nos.1 and 2 had confessed to the police that

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

accused no.3 had given them supari to commit murder of Jagadish. Aforesaid PWs2 and 3 have not stated anything else about involvement of accused nos.3 to 5 in committing the crime. They have not stated anything about the presence of accused 3 and 5 at the place of alleged crime.

¶73

Perusal of deposition of PWs.2 and 3 would also go

¶74

to show that there is some family dispute as well as other dispute between two parties which are pending before various courts.

¶75

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH (supra) in paragraph nos.105 and 106 has observed as follows:-

¶76

"105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

¶81

From a reading of aforesaid it is very clear that only if strong and cogent evidence is found against any person from the evidence led before the Court, then the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, can be exercised by the Trial Court to summon such person to stand trial for the alleged offences. The evidence available on record should make out a prima-facie

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

case for the purpose of exercising the power under Section 319

¶86

of Cr.P.C.

¶87

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA V. THE STATE OF U.P & ANR. -CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.990 OF 2021 DTD. 13.09.2021 having referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH (supra) has observed as follows:-

¶88

"The test as laid down by the constitution Bench of this court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this court, is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges.

¶89

It will all depend upon the evidence which is tendered in a given case as to whether there is a strong ground within the meaning of paragraph 105."

¶90

From the aforesaid two judgments it is apparent

¶91

that the test to be applied for the purpose of exercising the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, is that if the evidence

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:1101 CRL.RP No. 475 of 2025 C/W CRL.RP No. 512 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

available on record stood unrebutted, whether it would lead to conviction. The Court has to record satisfaction in the said terms and only then the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C can be exercised. In the event the Court is not in position to record such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

¶96

In the case on hand, the Trial Court has not recorded any such finding. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that had come on record during the course of their examination-in-chief. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶97

16. Accordingly, the following:-

¶98

ORDER

¶99

(i) Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed.

¶100

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.03.2025 passed in S.C.No.222/15 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan on the application filed by the

¶101