Writ Petition No. 11003 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11003 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANAND @ TAMBITTU @ TAMBI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJENDRAN, R/A NO.52, 14TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, PEENYA, BENGALURU 560 058. (BY SRI. MAYUR D. BHANU, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. MUTHYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA R/A NO. 23, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, CHANDRAPPA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 030.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN FOR THE OFFENCES S.C NO.836/2021 REGISTERED Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 302, 419 READ WITH SECTION 120 B ALONG WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENDAL CODE PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 419 read with Section 120B along with Section 149 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the deceased, Muthyalappa, son of Narayanappa, was working as an Attender in the BBMP Office situated at J.C. Road, Bengaluru. He resided with his wife and children in a house located at 1st Main, 2nd Cross, Chandrappa Nagar, Bengaluru. He had brothers and sisters. In 2006, there was a quarrel between the family of the deceased and accused Nos.1, 7, and 8 over a trivial matter, and a case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered at the Adugodi Police Station. After this incident, the gang headed by accused No.1, Mahesh, committed the murder of Velu in 2006, followed by the murder of Jollumani in 2008 and Surya Prakash in 2009, who were all associated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 with the deceased and his family members. Murder cases were registered against accused No.1 and his associates. Again, in 2011, there was a quarrel between the group of accused No.1 and the group of the deceased, resulting in another case being registered at the Adugodi Police Station. In this way, there was an ongoing group war. 3. It is alleged that on 4.9.2011, accused Nos.1 to 5 hatched a plan to commit the murder of Muthyalappa, and accused No.1 was arrested on 5.9.2011 and sent to judicial custody. Even while in custody, accused No.1 allegedly conspired with accused Nos.2 to 13 to murder Muthyalappa using a mobile phone. 4. On 16.9.2011, at about 11:30 a.m., the deceased Muthyalappa went to his office situated at J.C. Road. Accused Nos.12 and 13 were reportedly observing the deceased, and when he arrived at the office, accused Nos.2 to 6 attacked him with daggers, knives, and other deadly weapons. As a result, Muthyalappa succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It is alleged that accused Nos.1, 7 to 10, and others who attacked Muthyalappa conspired to eliminate him, and the murder was carried out as a result of the criminal conspiracy. After committing the murder, the accused allegedly destroyed the SIM cards of their mobile phones in order to cover up the evidence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 Furthermore, accused Nos.4 and 5 allegedly provided false information about their names and addresses, misleading the police during the investigation. 5. The petitioner (accused No.4) was absconding, and therefore, the charge sheet was split, and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial against the other accused. After evaluating the testimonies of all the material witnesses, including the eyewitnesses, and the Investigating Officer, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and passed the judgment of acquittal. The judgment dated 1.8.2018 in SC No.948/2012 has attained finality. 6. In the judgment of acquittal, it was observed that accused Nos.4 and 5 had been arrested in Crime No.365/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. At that time, they had provided incorrect names and addresses to avoid their arrest in the present case, thereby committing cheating. To prove this allegation, the police officer who had registered Crime No.365/2011 and arrested accused Nos.4 and 5 was necessary. However, this officer was not examined, and the names and addresses provided by accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.365/2011 were not proven. Therefore, the prosecution - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 failed to establish the guilt of the accused concerning the offence under Section 201 of IPC. 7. The allegations against accused No.4 and accused No.5 are similar, and since accused No.5 has been acquitted, the judgment of acquittal has attained finality. 8. It is a settled principle of law that when no distinct or separate allegations are made against an accused, and when co-accused facing identical allegations have been acquitted, continuing prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. In Crl.P. No. 6857/2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that a co-accused’s acquittal is not admissible as evidence under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act, and thus the benefit of acquittal cannot automatically be extended to the remaining accused. However, in that case, the acquittal was based solely on two witnesses (PWs 1 and 2 turning hostile), while other key witnesses had not been examined. 10. In the present case, however, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses and produced the relevant documents, yet failed to establish its case - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15838 WP No. 11003 of 2025 beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the co-accused. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC No.836/2021 pending before the learned LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as they relate to the petitioner (accused No.4), are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6