K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The petitioner who is accused No. 6 has sought for quashing of the entire case registered against him in Split Up CC No. 552/2014 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge JMFC-I, Vijayapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 109, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner along with other five accused persons by names Sushi, Vijayakumar, Muralingappa, Vasudev and Shashidhar have committed the murder of the deceased Suresh. A charge-sheet has been laid by the police and this petitioner was shown as absconding accused. The case was registered against A1 to A5 in SC No. 55/ 2014 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Vijaypur and vide judgment dated 17.1.2015, all the other accused persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court. It is also not in dispute that the State has not taken up any decision to prefer an appeal against the said judgment.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent (State) submits that decision was taken by the Government not to prefer any appeal against the said judgment. The order of the Government dated 30.3.2015 is perused.

4. The petitioner being the absconding accused claims that the allegations made against other accused and himself are one and the same and they are in-separable in nature and further added to that, even during the course of evidence by the witnesses, no witness has spoken anything about this petitioner in order to implicate him into the crime. Further added to that, it is contended that even if the trial is allowed to be continued against the petitioner, it is only a futile attempt and waste of judicial time. The prosecution has not proposed to lead any evidence against this petitioner, which can differ from the evidence already led before the Court so far as it relates to A1 to A5 are concerned. The witnesses examined in SC No. 55/2014 disclose that they were subjected to cross-examination and even in the course of cross-examination, they never implicated A6 into the crime.

5. On careful perusal of the judgment passed in SC No. 55/2014 and the charge sheet papers, it reveals that A1 to A6 on 23.08.2013 at Gyangbawadi, Bijapur, with common object and intention to commit the murder of the deceased Suresh, formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object, they have committed rioting and also they were armed with deadly weapons like knife, in order to commit the murder of the deceased. In furtherance of their common object, they intentionally caused the death of Suresh by cutting his neck and assaulted him on different parts of the body who succumbed to the injuries later and thereby all the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 302, 109 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 149 of IPC.

6. In order to prove the above said facts, the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses PWs. 1 to 23 and got marked Exhibits PI to P51 and MOs. 1 to 21. After detailed analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has recorded the judgment of acquittal, acquitting A1 to A5.

7. As could be seen from the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the material witnesses examined is none other than the wife of the deceased PW-6 Jyothi, who in fact not fully supported the case of the prosecution. In the examination-in-chief, though she has stated that the accused persons, who were before the Court, have assaulted the deceased with knife and other weapons and her husband died due to the assault. However, during the course of cross-examination, her evidence has been deviated and she has not implicated A2 to A4. She has not only stated anything about those accused persons, but she has given a clear chit so far as A6 is concerned. She has specifically deposed that she does not know about the petitioner Bagappa and she denied that the said petitioner Bagappa and her husband were a