AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District and Special Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No.105/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) seeking their discharge, came to be rejected.
The case was registered against six accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).
The prosecution case in brief, is that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had a grudge against the deceased, Umesh Chalwadi on the allegation that, he had destroyed the jowar crops in their lands and damaged their motorcycle. It is alleged that, on 27.06.2015 at about 11:30 p.m., the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and with the aid and assistance of accused Nos.3 to 6, gathered near Kugilageri Cross on the Dharwad–Alnavar Road, where the deceased was sleeping on a bridge.
It is further alleged that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were pushed the deceased from the bridge and the accused No.1 assaulted him with a club on his face, while the accused No.2 assaulted him with a stone on his forehead, thereby causing his death. It is also alleged that, the accused persons attempted to cause the disappearance of evidence by concealing the clothes worn by them at the time of the incident and the material objects used in the commission of the said offence.
After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. the Accused Nos.3 and 4 who are the petitioners herein, were shown as absconding. Consequently, a split-up charge-sheet was filed against them in S.C. No.105/2019.
The trial proceeded against accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused No.6 was died and the case against him stood abated. Ultimately, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted of the alleged offences.
Thereafter, the petitioners who are accused Nos.3 and 4, filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned II Additional District and Special Judge, Dharwad, seeking their discharge from the alleged offences. The same came to be dismissed. Hence, petitioners are before this court.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, during the course of investigation, accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 were arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against them, whereas the present petitioners were shown as absconding. It was contended that the petitioners had been working as coolies in Goa and were not present in the village. Subsequently, they came to know that they had been arrayed as accused and that a split-up charge-sheet had been filed against them.
It was further contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, who had faced trial and were acquitted. According to the petitioners, the evidence available against them was the same as the evidence adduced during the trial of the co-accused. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioners to a separate trial, and continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition, contending that the acquittal of the co-accused could not automatically enure to the benefit of the petitioners, who had absconded and had not faced trial.
It was further contended that the petitioners were alleged to have participated in the commission of the offence and that, as they were unavailable during the course of investigation, the proceedings against them were split up. Hence, the learned High Court Government Pleader sought dismissal of the petition.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and has perused the records.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions:
Sri Harish @ Kale v. State of Byatarayanapura, Crl.P. No.10022/2024, disposed of on 25.11.2024.
The State of Karnataka v. K.C. Narasegowda, Crl. Referred Case No.1/2005, disposed of on 08.02.2005.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 478.
Smt. Mahalakshmi Kumari W/o Pradeep v. State of Karnataka and another, Crl.P. No.4657/2014, disposed of on 04.09.2014.
Abdullah S/o Late Abdullah Raheem v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No.5523/2025, disposed of on 09.06.2025.
The question that arises for our consideration is:
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the benefit of the acquittal of the co-accused can be extended to the petitioners, who are facing proceedings pursuant to the split-up charge-sheet?
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and that the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. It is argued that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not established by cogent evidence during the trial of the co-accused. Therefore, the petitioners contend that continuation of the proceedings against them would serve no useful purpose.
On perusal of the judgment passed in S.C. No.24/2016, it is seen that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5. The case against accused No.6 stood abated on account of his death.
The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that where the proceedings against the co-accused arise out of the same incident and are based on the same set of facts and evidence, and where the acquittal of the co-accused has attained finality, the Court may, in appropriate circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the continuation of a futile prosecution.
In the present case, the petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the same crime. The allegations against them arise out of the same incident and are based on the same set of facts. The co-accused who faced trial have been acquitted. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the trial Court has found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not established so as to complete the chain of circumstances.
In view of the acquittal of the co-accused on the same set of facts and evidence, and having regard to the material available on record, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Subjecting the petitioners to a separate trial, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would only result in wastage of precious judicial time.
Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioners. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order warrants interference and proceeds to pass the following.
ORDER
The Criminal revision petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the learned II Additional District and Special Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No.105/2019, is hereby set aside.
The proceedings pending against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, in the split-up charge-sheet arising out of the aforesaid crime, are hereby quashed.