Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 208 (KAR)

Mohisin S/o. B. Hammabba v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-14

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2018
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned HCGP takes notice for the Respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 & 13 originally in C.C. No.1491/2013 on the file of the court of JMFC-II, Mangaluru. As many as 20 accused were prosecuted in the said case by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. All other accused persons, except these two petitioners were tried by the trial Court and vide judgment dated 02.02.2015 all other accused persons were acquitted of the above said charges. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court seeking extension of the said acquittal judgment in their favour also. 4. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the 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. 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]. 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 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.” 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 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.” 5. On careful perusal of the above said judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this court, it is clear that, if the allegations against the acquitted accused and the absconding accused are one and the same. If the absconding accused persons are secured later, the benefit of acquittal can be extended to them also subject to the condition that, the allegations made against all the accused are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature. In order to ascertain whether the allegations against the present petitioners and other acquitted accused are one and the same, it is just and necessary for this court to have a brief factual matrix of the case. 6. In order to ascertain whether the allegations against the present petitioners and other acquitted accused are one and the same, it is just and necessary for this court to have a brief factual matrix of the case. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 09.11.2012 at about 1.25 pm. in Panambur Village near Muslim Jamath Mosque, 2nd block, Katipall Village of Mangaluru Taluk, after finishing the mass namaz, when CW.6 and CW.1 who are the President and Secretary of the said Mosque asked the people gathered in the mosque to pay the amount which was spent for the case filed by late Haji P. Ibrahim against the President and Secretary of the Mosque. When CW.8 was collecting money from the members gathered there, Accused No.1-Sirajuddin @ Bulk Siraj objected for the same. In that context, it appears, in the mosque, there was heated conversation between CW.8 and Accused No.1. When CW.2 to CW.5 intervened to support CW.8, at that time, Accused Nos.1 to 5, 6 & 7 gathered there, in fact started assaulting CWs. 2 to 5 and as well as throwing brick and granite pieces towards CWs.2, 4, 10 & 13 and also assaulted them with hands and stamped them with legs and abused them in filthy language etc. After the charge sheet being filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC, on putting other accused persons on trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses viz., PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. 7. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to a definite conclusion that, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused persons, who were tried before the trial court, beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, it acquitted those accused persons of the offences alleged against them. Thereafter, it appears the State has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment rendered by the trial Court. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when specifically the allegations made against all the accused persons are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature, the judgment of acquittal rendered sofar as other accused persons are concerned, shall also be similarly extended sofar as the petitioners, against whom the split-up case was lodged. Therefore, the case against them also deserves to be quashed in order to avoid unnecessary waste of judicious time of the court. Hence. I pass the following order: ORDER The petition is allowed. The case in C.C. No.4640/2014 (arising out of Crime No. 215/2012 of Surathkal Police Station, D.K.) registered against the petitioners (A2 & A13 respectively) for the aforesaid offences, pending on the file of the Court of JMFC-II, Mangaluru and all further proceedings therein sofar as the petitioners concerned, are hereby quashed.