Sanna Sanganagouda vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J—The petitioner who has arrayed as A3 in SC No. 42/2012 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, has preferred this petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pending in CC No. 152/2012, wherein a split up Criminal Case was registered against him on the file of JMFC, Shahapur on the ground that the learned Sessions Court has already acquitted the other accused persons in the said SC No. 42/2012.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that originally charge sheet was laid by Shahapur Police against seven accused persons in total. Out of them, A1, A2, A5 to A7 were tried by the Sessions Court and acquitted those accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 504, 302, 109, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against this Petitioner and other acquitted accused persons are similar in nature and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature. In fact, the Trial Court has framed charges against the other accused persons including the complicity of the present petitioner and also giving findings to the charges levelled against the other accused persons and acquitted those accused persons. Therefore, even if the trial is ordered to be continued against this petitioner, it would be a futile attempt and waste of valuable judicial time. Therefore, he pleads for dismissal of the petition and consequently, the split up case deserves to be quashed.

I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State, who submitted that the Court can proceed with the matter considering the evidence of the witnesses and also judgment of the Trial Court. He has not specifically brought to my notice any special, specific and different allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet when compared with the other accused persons. In this background, the Court has to see whether the allegations made against the petitioner and other accused persons are indivisible and inseparable in nature and it is only a futile attempt to go on with the trial without any purpose or object and is a waste of judicial time. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to just look into the allegations made in the charge sheet papers.

The charge sheet papers disclose that on 3.3.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., in Sharadalli village in Shahapur taluk in survey No. 70/2, the deceased Bhimanagouda Basareddy son of Yankanagowda and his wife Parvathi were taking lunch in the said land. At that time, A1 to A4 suddenly came to that particular place and started quarreling with the said Parvathi and particularly A1 Yankanagoud started quarreling with Parvathi, A1 and A2 Yakanagoud and Hanamanthrayagoud were holding choppers in their hand, A4 Bassangoud was holding axe in his hand and assaulted Bhimanagoud on his neck. A1 assaulted Bhimanagoud with chopper on the neck. A2 assaulted the said person on the left chin and caused severe bleeding injuries.. A4 Basanagoud assaulted the deceased Bhimanagoud and due to the injuries, Bhimanagoud succumbed to the injuries and died instantaneous death at the spot. A1, A2 and A4 also assaulted Parvathi, particularly A1 assaulted with chopper on the left side neck of Parvathi and A2 assaulted her and caused bleeding injuries. Further, A4 also assaulted her with axe. In fact, A1, A2 and A4 were +instigated by A3 and therefore, all the accused persons joined together and committed such offence. It is specifically alleged that the other accused persons 5 to 7 were present and they instigated the accused persons who have specifically assaulted the deceased person. The said Bhimanagoud and also his wife Parvathi succumbed to the injuries. Particularly on 7.3.2011, the said Parvathi died in the Hospital. On the above said allegations, the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses PWs. 1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P55 documents and MOs. 1 to 11 were marked before the Court. The Trial Court in fact, framed charges against the available accused persons particularly, A1 and A2 are the culprits who have used the choppers and particularly assaulted the deceased Bhimanagoud and Parvathi and due to that they sustained severe injuries and died due to the injuries. Similar allegations are made against the present petitioner who was arrayed as A3 who was also present at the time of incident and instigated accused persons 1, 2 and 4. The Trial Court has formulated the points in the following manner:

"(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 3.3.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 and accused No. 3 & 4 came to the land bearing revenue Sy. No. 70/2 situated at Shardalli village within the limits of Shahapur Police station forming themselves into unlawful assembly being armed with choppers and axe and committed rioting and thereby accused No. 1, 2 and 5 to 7 are guilty of offences punishable u/s. 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code?

(2) Whether the prosecution has proved that on the above said date, time and place, in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly of all the accused, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 7 along with accused Nos. 3 & 4 intentionally insulted deceased Parvathi and deceased Bhimanagoud by abusing them and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 are guilty of offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 159 of Indian Penal Code?

(3) Whether the prosecution has proved that on the above said date, time and place, in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly of all the accused, accused No. 1 assaulted deceased Bhimanagoud with chopper on his neck and accused No. 2 assaulted the deceased Bhimanagoud on his right cheek and chin and accused No. 4 assaulted the deceased Bhimanagoud with axe on his neck and caused him fatal injuries resulting in his death and thus committed his murder and accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the deceased Parvathi with chopper on her neck and accused No. 4 assaulted the deceased Parvathi with axe on the neck and caused her fatal injuries resulting in her death on 7.3.2011 and thus committed her murder and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 are guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code?

(4) Whether the prosecution has proved that on the above said date, time and place, in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly of all the accused, accused No. 3 instigated accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to commit murder of the deceased Parvathi and the deceased Bhimanagoude and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 are guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code?

(5) Whether the prosecution has proved that on the above said date, time and place, in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly of all the accused, accused Nos. 5 and 7 instigated accused Nos. 1 to 4 to commit murder of the deceased Parvathi and the deceased Bhimanagoud and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 are guilty of offence punishable under section 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code?"

Answering the above said points in the Negative, to all the charges levelled against the accused, ultimately acquitted the accused persons sent for trial. The learned Sessions Judge has considered that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not fully supported the case of the prosecution.

The Trial Court has considered meticulously the evidence of each and every witness. It is stated that PWs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have all turned hostile to the prosecution. The Trial Court has also considered that the so called panch witness for all the panchnamas with regard to the recovery and other things have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Court held that no recovery has been proved and particularly, the eye-witnesses to the prosecution who are examined as PWs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively have also turned volte-face to the prosecution. Therefore, looking from all the angles, the Court has specifically held that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the other accused persons 1, 2 and 5 to 7 are acquitted for the above said offences, which judgment reached its finality, as no appeal is preferred by the State.

The petitioner who has arrayed as A3 also stand on the same footing as that of A5 to A7. There is no specific allegations particularly against this petitioner that he used any weapon and assaulted the deceased. More over the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the persons against whom such specific allegations are made, they are the persons who have used choppers and committed the murder of the deceased persons. Those persons are acquitted by considering the material evidence on record. Therefore, in my opinion, the same benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the present petitioner is concerned. The petitioner was absconding throughout during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court.

On perusal of the evidence, charge sheet allegations and also the judgment of the Trial Court, it is made crystal clear that the allegations made against A1 A2, A5 and A7 are indivisible and inseparable in nature when compared with the present petitioner i.e., A3. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the proceedings are ordered to be continued against this petitioner, it is not only futile attempt, waste of judicious time but also abuse of process of the Court. The trial even if it is allowed to be conducted against the present petitioner the prosecution cannot have any better evidence than the one already placed before the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a substantial and good ground for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 152/2012 on the file of the JMFC, Shahapur. In view of the above said reasons, the following order is passed.

The petition is allowed. All proceedings pending in CC No. 152/2012 on the file of JMFC, Shahapur are hereby quashed.