SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

A.L.Althaf @ Papul @ Farhan vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO.8698 /2017

BETWEEN

A.L.ALTHAF @ PAPUL @ FARHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O ABDUL LATHEEF
R/A BANGALA BEEDI
BEHIND MOHAN PETROL BUNK
VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRASANNA D P, ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT-571218
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.87/2016 ON THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KODAGU AT MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
366(A),376,506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
2

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner who was arrayed as A1 in SC

No.20/2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, has approached this

court for quashing of the proceedings registered against

him on the basis of split up charge sheet, in SC

No.87/2016 on the file of the III Addl. District and

Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under

Sections 366(A), 376, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. The records disclose that the petitioner who was

arrayed as Accused No.1 in SC NO.20/2013, was

absconding. Therefore, he was split up from the said

case and other accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were tried by

the learned Sessions Judge and rendered a judgment of

acquittal, so far as those accused persons are

concerned, vide Judgment dtd:10.01.2017. Against

which no appeal proffered by the State.

3. Now, the petitioner herein claims that, the

allegations made against A1 to A6 in the said case are
3

one and the same and there is no distinction with

regard to the factual aspects compared to all the other

accused persons who are already acquitted. Therefore,

on the ground of parity, this petitioner seeks for

extension of the acquittal Judgment rendered by the

Sessions Court, consequently, quashing the proceedings

in SC No.87/2016.

4. The brief factual matrix which emanate from the

record are that on 25.9.2010, the accused No.1 has

persuaded the victim girl, who was examined as PW1

before the Trial Court. It is further alleged that, he took

her to various places and have had sexual intercourse

with her and not only he had forcible intercourse with

her but also allowed other friends of A1 who are arrayed

as A2 to A6 to enjoy sex with her. Therefore, the

complaint came to be lodged in that context. Therefore,

it is clear from the allegations that all the accused

persons have, against her will and consent committed

rape on PW-1. On these allegations, the police have

investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet.

During the course of trial of all other acquitted accused
4

persons, the prosecution examined as many as 18

witnesses and got marked 27 documents as Exhibits P1

to P27 and one Material object MO1. The learned

Sessions Judge, after evaluating the oral and

documentary evidence on record has come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to

establish the alleged offences against the accused, for

the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376,

343, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied upon

the evidence of the Prosecutrix, who turned volte face

to the prosecution and she never stated any incident

being happened as stated in Ex.P1 which is the first

information report lodged by the victim. It is stated by

her, that she had been to her friends house i.e., CW8-

Mamatha and she stayed in her house and thereafter,

she came back to her house after four days, without

informing her parents, as she has failed in SSLC

examination. When she came back, she came to know

that, her father has already lodged a missing complaint

before police and in fact her father took her to the Police
5

Station and taken signatures of her on various

documents but she did not know the contents of those

documents and she specifically said that, she never

made any allegation against any person much less

against the accused person herein. On the main basis

of such evidence before the court, the Trial Court has

arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has not

established the guilt of the accused. Consequently,

acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6.

6. Considering the above said factual aspects of

evidence, the prosecution has not led any specific

evidence against A1. Therefore, the allegation and

evidence already led by the prosecution are indivisible

and inseparable so far as A1 is concerned compared to

the other accused persons who are already acquitted.

Therefore, I am of the opinion, the continuation of the

proceedings in SC No.87/2016 against this petitioner for

the same offences will be a futile exercise and it would

be a waste of judicial time. Therefore, in my opinion,

the proceeding deserves to be quashed.
6

7. In this regard, it is worth to mention here an

unreported decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION

NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring

the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR

Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA],

AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and

2002(1) KCCR 1 [ MUNEER AHMED QURESHI,

MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in

order to ascertain whether this court can quash the

proceedings against the co-accused, when the other

accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in

a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017

dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied

upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in

(2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs.

STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822

[THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C.

NARASEGOWDA]. Therefore, before adverting to the
7

factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the

decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein,

it was held that:

“Quashing of charge and discharge of the
accused when an accused who alleged to
have hatched conspiracy and who had motive
to kill the deceased were already
discharged, that matter had attained finality,
the discharge of co-accused by High Court by
holding that no purpose would be served in
further proceeding with case against co-
accused held proper.”

8. In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi’s case (supra), this

Court has held that: –

“Entire case of the prosecution as
against six accused is practically
inseparable and individual one and

especially when the Judgment of acquittal is
passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire
incident or the role of the accused. This
reasoning of acquittal would also definitely
enure to the petitioner. Even if the
petitioner is tried there cannot be any other
material other than what is already
produced and considered by Trial Court. In
8

such circumstances it will be an exercise in
futility to make the petitioner to undergo the
ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.

Holding that the proceeding against the
accused person who was absconding and
subsequently against whom a split up
charge sheet was filed was quashed.”

In view of the above said decisions also, the Apex Court

and this Court have already taken a view that once the

allegations made in the charge sheet and also the

evidence considered by the Trial Court are one and the

same against all the accused persons and if some of the

accused persons have already been acquitted, the same

benefit has to be extended to the other accused persons

who are split up from the case. In view of the above

said facts and circumstances I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, The

Sessions Case No.87/2016 on the file of the III Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri for the

offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 506
9

read with Section 34 of IPC and all further proceedings

therein are hereby quashed so far as this petitioner is

concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh