The acquittal of co-accused due to insufficient evidence necessitates similar relief for the petitioner facing parallel charges.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - accused No.14 is now at the doors of this Court calling in question continuance of S.C.No.1529/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120B, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act , 1984.

2. Heard Smt. Deepa V. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.14 along with several accused get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.151/2019. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The petitioner was not available for a trial like few others. The accused who were available for trial were tried and acquitted by an order of Sessions Court dated 30.08.2025. A split charge is drawn against the petitioner, which has now resulted in his continuance of further proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is before the Court seeking parity in treatment with the others, who have been acquitted of the offence.

4. Learned counsel, Smt. Deepa V. Shetty, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioners are alleged of offences of unlawful assembly and murder. The petitioner being accused No.14 and the other accused right from accused No.1 to 13 or even others being acquitted of the offences by the order of the Sessions Court, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. Learned counsel further submits that the accused has been taken to judicial custody on account of a split charge being drawn against him.

5. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission contending that the petitioner, who has escaped trial, should not be shown any indulgence. He should also come out clean in a full blown trial like the other accused and would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. All the accused are tried in S.C.No.1529/2021. The Court of Session tries the accused, who were available for trial and acquits them on 30.08.2025. The order of acquittal qua the other accused is on the following reason:

"Appreciation of evidence:

55. The evidence of PW.60 Dr. S.R. Jagannath, contents of Exs.P.128 and P.130 post mortem reports of the of deceased Varun and deceased Thamma Manja and inquest panchanama marked at Ex.P.26, evidence of PW.5 Raju, PW.8 - Vankatesh and evidence of PW.17 - Venkatesh unequivocally establish death of Varun and Thamma Manja is homicidal in nature. As such point No.1 is taken up for consideration is held in the Affirmative

56. POINTS No.2 to 7:

The entire case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence.

57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Three Bench Judgment reported inAIR 1952 SC 343 - Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh laid down the mode of evaluation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench Judgment reported inAIR 1960 SC 29 - Govindareddy Vs. State of Mysore , reiterated the said principles and it is as follows;

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a clear of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused".

58. The Hon'ble Supr