Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Vinod, S/o. Venkappa Malali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, PSI Karatagi Police Station, Dist. Koppal, By Special Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
Protest Petition in this Case:
The petitioner filed a protest petition on 30.08.2024 against the 'B' report dated 13.12.2023 submitted by the Investigating Officer, along with supporting documents including CDRs and correspondence alleging involvement of additional accused and investigative lapses. (!) (!)
The trial court (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal at Gangavathi) rejected the protest petition on 13.11.2024 in S.C. No.89/2021 without recording any sworn statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C./Section 223(1) BNSS, without examining documents, and without properly ascertaining the 'B' report or protest petition contents. (!) (!) (!)
Petitioner's key grievances in the protest petition included: - Incomplete/inaccurate CDRs with gaps, missing serial numbers, tower locations, and late production (e.g., after 2 years for accused Nos. 2 and 4), failing to capture communications around the offence date (17.10.2020). (!) (!) (!) - Failure to investigate specific mobile numbers linked to relatives/accused (e.g., 6360250700 - Rangappa Powar; 9380837207 - Srinivas Chandan Shiva; 7559481836), showing frequent contacts pre/post-offence. (!) (!) (!) - Absence of Section 65B certificate for CDRs as electronic evidence, rendering it inadmissible/incomplete. (!) (!) (!) - Alleged shielding of accused by the Investigating Officer, including partial CDRs for absconding accused No.2 and uninvestigated links. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court's Observations and Ruling: - Trial court's rejection was mechanical, ignoring specific allegations supported by documents (CDRs, complaints) and failing to address CDR irregularities or investigative defects. (!) (!) (!) - Emphasized right to fair investigation under Article 21, even post-charge sheet and charge framing; courts can order further investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Held prima facie case of defective investigation; quashed the rejection order dated 13.11.2024. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Directed respondent No.1 (PSI, Karatagi PS) to conduct further investigation based on CDRs of accused/others, submit report to trial court within 3 months; trial to proceed expeditiously post-supplementary report. (!) (!)
ORDER :
(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)
Heard the learned counsel, Sri R.H. Angadi, for the impleading applicant on I.A. No. 1/2025 and the counsel for the petitioner.
2. Upon being satisfied with the grounds urged, the application is allowed. The proposed applicant is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No.4. The learned counsel is also permitted to amend the cause title accordingly and forthwith.
3. The petitioner – complainant is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (sitting at Gangavathi) in S.C. No.89/2021 rejecting protest petition filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kirthilatha Patil, the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
5. The petitioner – complainant is the husband of one Smt. Triveni (the deceased). The family members of the petitioner – complainant and the deceased were not happy with their marriage, as the petitioner belonging to Reddy family and his wife – deceased was from Maratha family. All the relatives of the deceased were har
The Court upheld the principle that constitutional mandates require thorough and fair investigations in criminal cases, allowing for further inquiry even after charges are framed to ensure justice is....
The court affirmed that further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC even after a charge sheet is filed, ensuring a fair and just investigation.
Point of law: Article 21 of Constitution not only takes within its fold, the enforcement of the rights of the accused but also the rights of the deceased.
The investigation must be unbiased, honest, and just, and fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The power to dire....
Constitutional guarantee under Art.21 of the Constitution of India embraces both the life and liberty of the accused and the interest of the victim as well as of the society at large and cannot be al....
The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with Section 45A and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in evaluating electronic evidence and the inadmissibilit....
The court highlighted the importance of timely investigation oversight to uphold justice in criminal proceedings.
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
