Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
N.R. Santosh S/o Rudramurthy – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2327 of 2019
Decided On : 01-02-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 365, 511, 331, 120B read with 149, 204 and 364A - Assault – unlawful assembly - Quash of proceedings - Allegation while he was travelling from his friend Jagadeesh’s house to Malleshwaram in his vehicle, when he was passing through Mahalakshmi Layout, a car came from behind and dashed his car - When he stepped out of the car to check if there were any damages, three people asked him to come and check if something had happened to the front portion of his car time, one person held him tightly from behind and tried to make him sit inside the car - Person sitting in the driver seat had kept car on and remaining 5-6 people hit informant and tried to push him inside the car and the informant objected to this and fought back and when they failed to push the informant inside the car –
Finding of the Court:
Offence can be proved by adducing circumstantial evidence or by necessary implication. Hence, it is clear that even though there was no direct evidence when the criminal conspiracy is alleged against this petitioner, it is settled law that the same is generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is difficult to obtain or access. The criminal conspiracy has to be proved by collecting the material through the circumstantial evidence. Hence, it requires trial. At this juncture, the Court cannot invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he had conspired with accused No. 2. It is also important to note that the call details of this petitioner and accused was also collected and on record it discloses that there were two calls between the accused and this petitioner prior to the incident i.e. on 5th and 8th of the particular month and the incident was taken place on 11.05.2017. No doubt, there is no more number of calls but the case has to be proved only on the circumstantial evidence since the prosecution relies upon particularly the statements of CW-1 and also CW-41. CW-41, is a friend of the complainant and also this petitioner. Hence, it requires full-pledged trial to prove the conspiracy as alleged against this petitioner under Section 120B of IPC.
Result: Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 163/2017 and S.C. No. 306/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 365, 511, 331, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-59).
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who is working as an advisor to Sri. K.S. Eshwarappa, Opposition Leader, made the allegation that on 11.05.2017 at around 4.00 p.m. while he was travelling from his friend Jagadeesh’s house to Malleshwaram in his vehicle, when he was passing through Mahalakshmi Layout, a car came from behind and dashed his car. When he stepped out of the car to check if there were any damages, three people asked him to come and check if something had happened to the front portion of his car. At that time, one person held him tightly from behind and tried to make him sit inside the car. A person sitting in the driver seat had kept the car on and remaining 5-6 people hit the informant and tried to push him inside the car and the informant objected to this and fought back and when they failed to push the informant inside the car, he fell on the road and started shouting and at this point of time, when the public started gathering, the miscreants pushed him outside the car and fled away. Based on the complaint, the police have registered Crime No. 163/2017. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, which is numbered as C.C. No. 27590/2017 and thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is numbered as S.C. No. 306/2018.
3. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in this petition, mainly contend that there is no specific overt-act attributed against him. It is also his case that there is no material against the petitioner that he involved in the commission of the offence. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge, without application of mind to the allegations in the charge-sheet, both original and supplementary, without recording any satisfaction as to whether any case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner, in a mechanical manner, taken cognizance twice, which is bad in law, impermissible and unsustainable. It is also contended that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner and even in 161 statement of the witnesses. It is contended that the witnesses, who remotely mentioned the name of the petitioner also are not direct witnesses, but in the nature of alleged hear-say witnesses, whose evidence will not render any support to the prosecution. It is also contended that further investigation was conducted without obtaining the permission of the learned Magistrate. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4. Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that the case is registered against the unknown persons. CW-1 is the complainant. CWs. 2 to 10 are the panch witnesses. CWs. 17 and 18 are the mahazar witnesses for seizure of the mobile and CD. CWs. 19 to 23 are the eye-witnesses. CWs. 24 to 26 are the one who found the assailants. CW-27 is the owner of the car. CWs. 32 and 33 are the owners of the lodge. CW-34 is the owner of the bar. The only witness is CW-41 and his statement also does not support the case of the prosecution regarding whatsapp messages. CWs. 45 and 48 are the Investigating Officers. CW-43 is the doctor, who treated the injured. The learned counsel referring the statements of these witnesses would contend that the statement of CW-1 is only a hear-say statement. Based on the statement of the co-accused, he made the statement. The Trial Judge has taken the cognizance vide order dated 05.02.2018 and committed an error in issuing the summons vide order dated 24.03.2018. The learned counsel submits that supplementary charge-sheet has been filed and permission is not ta
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
