ORDER : Easwaran S., J. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash Annuexure A1 final report in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station which is now pending as C.P. No.81 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Crl.M.C. are as follows: The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1, along with other accused and CW1, committed the murder of one Podimon due to the enmity of the petitioner against the deceased. According to the allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with CW1 dragged the deceased from his shed towards the forest where he was killed by strangulation by tightening a towel around his neck and thereafter dumped the dead body into a rock pit after amputing his legs below the knee and filled the pit with earth and stones. 3. The petitioner did not participate in the trial. Accused Nos.2 to 5 faced the trial in S.C. No.489 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta. At the conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Court found that the prosecution was not successful in proving either accused No.1 or accused No.2 and CW1 had abducted the deceased from his house and murdered him. Therefore, after analysing the evidence, the Additional Sessions Court found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving either accused No.1 or accused No.2 or CW1 had abducted the deceased and murdered him in their presence. There was a further finding that there is no evidence that the accused Nos.1 to 5 destroyed the evidence in the case by burning the bath towel used to strangulate the deceased and also by throwing away the chopper used for amputing the legs of the corpse of the deceased. In conclusion, the Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 and set them at liberty forthwith. However, since the accused No.1/the petitioner herein did not participate in the trial, the case against him was kept pending for trial. In conclusion, the Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 and set them at liberty forthwith. However, since the accused No.1/the petitioner herein did not participate in the trial, the case against him was kept pending for trial. In view of the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Court wherein accused Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted, the 1 st accused has approached this Court with the present Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the Final Report against him. 4. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. Sri. Manu Ramanchandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out by referring to the specific finding in paragraph 34 of Annexure A2 judgment and asserted that inasmuch as, the trial court having entered a final finding to the effect that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner/first accused, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against him. On the contrary, if the trial against the petitioner is continued, the same will be abuse of process of law in as much as the State has not challenged the findings in Annexure A2 judgment to the effect that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused No.1 who is the petitioner herein. 6. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.4.2025, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to ascertain as to whether the State has preferred any appeal against Anneuxre A2 judgment. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against Annexure A2 judgment. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 8. On a perusal of Annexure A2 judgment, it is seen that the trial court has entered into a categorical finding after analysing the prosecution case and the evidence produced before it. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, who is accused No.1, had confessed while in custody regarding the commission of offence. However, the trial court has not accepted the said confession which was made while the petitioner was in custody. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, who is accused No.1, had confessed while in custody regarding the commission of offence. However, the trial court has not accepted the said confession which was made while the petitioner was in custody. Even the confession of the co-accused was not taken for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused in the absence of corroboration especially when the accused who made the confession is not tried along with the other accused. That apart, on a close scrutiny of the findings rendered by the trial court in Annexure A2 judgment, it is evident that the acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 5 is not solely based on the above facts. Independent evidence produced by the prosecution was closely analysed by the trial court and it came to the conclusion that there is contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and ultimately the following findings were entered by the trial court in paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of Annexure A2 judgment that are extracted herein as under: “34. In this context, the recovery of the 10th rib and the right calcanium made under the Ext. P7 Inquest report on the basis of the Ext.P7(a) confession statement requires consideration. As evidenced by the Ext. P7 Inquest report, the 10th rib and the right calcanium were taken into custody by the Cl of Police, Konni in the presence of PW4 and the 10 th rib was sent for the chemical analysis and Ext. P3 is the certificate received thereof. The Ext.P3 report would show that no poison was detected in the sample. In the report submitted along with the final report filed in this case, it is clearly stated that in the D.N.A. examination of the right calcanium recovered under the Ext. P7 Inquest report done at the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Bio Technology it is found that the same is of women origin and therefore it can be safely concluded that the calcanium recovered under the Ext. P7 Inquest report is not that of Podimon. So as matters stands now, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused had destroyed the evidence in the case. 35. P7 Inquest report is not that of Podimon. So as matters stands now, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused had destroyed the evidence in the case. 35. In a nutshell, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that either Al, A2 and PWI had abducted Podimon from his house at Nellidampara or Al and A2 had murdered him in the presence of PW1 at Meenmuttippara or A1 to A5 destroyed the evidence in the case by burning the bath towel, and throwing away the chopper used for amputing the legs of the corpse of Podimon and the skull and bones, collected by them from the rock pit at Meenmuttippara where they buried the corpse beyond reasonable doubt. Points answered accordingly.” 9. It is pertinent to mention that Anneuxre A2 judgment was rendered on 13.1.2010. Fifteen (15) years have lapsed since Annexure A2 judgment was rendered by the trial court and the State has not chosen to challenge the findings of the trial court, acquitting the other accused. 10. In the above circumstances, the question before this Court is as to whether the trial against the 1 st accused should continue or not. Although the acquittal of co-accused will not enure to the benefit of the accused who was absconding at the time of trial, the said rule has its own exception. In Durga Burman Roy Vs State of Sikkim [ (2014) 13 SCC 35 ] , the Supreme Court held that normally the rule is that the benefit of acquittal of co- accused will not entail the accused who was absconding at the time of trial to claim acquittal, if there is no independent evidence against the accused who was absconding, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 11. In Sahadevan vs State of Tamil Nadu [ (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] , the Supreme Court held that if the entire prosecution case is unreliable and that prosecution as such was not able to prove the case against the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of the acquittal of the co- accused. 12. 11. In Sahadevan vs State of Tamil Nadu [ (2012) 6 SCC 403 ] , the Supreme Court held that if the entire prosecution case is unreliable and that prosecution as such was not able to prove the case against the accused, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of the acquittal of the co- accused. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in Moosa Vs Sub Inspector of Police [ (2006) 1 KLT 552 ] held that if the substratum of the case is destroyed by the finding of the court while acquitting the co- accused then it will be abuse of process of law, to have the trial continued against the other accused. Finally, it was held by the Full Bench that it is up to the Judge who hears the application under Section 482 to decide whether the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost or not. 13. That being so, it becomes imperative for this Court to examine whether the conditions stipulated in the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Moosa (Supra) are available on facts or not. On a close reading of Annexure A2 Judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has specifically concluded that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to hold that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 had murdered the deceased Podimon. Hence, it is explicitly clear that the substratum of the case has been lost. 14. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court should invoke the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 and quash all further proceedings in C.P. No.81 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.P. No.81 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, in Crime No.281 of 2002 of the Konni Police Station against the petitioner are quashed.