Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.515 OF 2023

BETWEEN:
MR. SUNIL @ SILENT SUNIL
S/O MR. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 701,
B-WING, TOWER-6,
GODREJ WOODMAN ESTATE APARTMENTS,
HEBBALA KEMPAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 024.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYUR D.BHANU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
THROUGH
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . MR. N. B. MAGADUM
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI K.RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT
IN IA NO.2/2023)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mayur D. Bhanu
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, K. Ram Singh

A confessional statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot, in isolation without independent corroborative proof, form a valid basis for framing charges or maintaining criminal proceedings against another accused person.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120(b) - Criminal proceedings - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner implicated as an accused solely on the basis of a confession statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Such statement is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself suffice to frame charges or lead to conviction - No other corroborative material placed on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime - Continuation of proceedings in such circumstances constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 4, 7, 8.1, 9)

Facts of the case:
Following a suo motu complaint, a crime was registered for offences relating to arms possession and criminal conspiracy. During the investigation, one of the accused persons provided a statement to the police implicating the petitioner, alleging a conspiracy to commit harm against a third party due to personal rivalry. The petitioner, not named in the original FIR, was subsequently added as an accused solely based on this confessional statement of the co-accused, leading to the filing of this petition seeking to quash the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that a confessional statement of a co-accused remains a weak type of evidence and cannot independently serve as the foundation for criminal proceedings. In the absence of any supplemental evidence or corroborating material to substantiate the allegations of conspiracy, the inclusion of the petitioner in the array of accused is legally unsustainable and represents an abuse of the court's process.

Issues: The central issue was whether criminal proceedings could be initiated and maintained against an individual solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement recorded during investigation, absent any other corroborative material.

Ratio Decidendi: Confessional statements of a co-accused are not substantive evidence and lack evidentiary value unless supported by independent corroborative proof. Therefore, relying exclusively on an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused to trigger or continue a criminal prosecution is legally invalid.

Result: Criminal petition is allowed; proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

Reserved on : 03.02.2026

Pronounced on : 25.04.2026

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR AND INFORMATION IN CR.NO.300/2022 OF WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3, 25(1B)(a) OF ARMS ACT R/W SECTION 120(b) IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU METROPOLITAN AREA, AT BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT OF IMPLICATING THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.300 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Sri Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K. Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing for impleading applicant in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

On 28-12-2022 a suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the Wilson Garden Police Station invoking the afore-quoted provisions against one Sameerulla Khan @ Sameeulla Khan. On registration of the crime against the said Sameeulla Khan investigation would commence and the said Sameeulla Khan takes the name of the petitioner to have been involved in the offence. The statement of the said Sameeulla Khan projected that the petitioner wanted to plot or hatch a conspiracy to do away the life of one Naga due to old rivalry. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner got pistol and bullets which have been seized from the possession of the accused No.1. These are attributed to the petitioner and he is drawn as accused No.5 later. The drawing of the petitioner as accused No.5 in Crime No.300 of 2022 has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Mayur D. Bhanu, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that accused No.1/Sameeulla Khan comes to be arrested in relation to a warrant issued in C.C.No.9584 of 2022. He was remanded to Police custody on 06-01-2023. The name of the petitioner was revealed by the said accused No.1 and in the remand application, the name of the petitioner then comes to be inserted, without there being any corroboration whatsoever, but solely based on the statement of accused No.1 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He would submit that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence. He has been drawn into the web of crime solely after the representation made by the petitioner to the Home Secretary seeking direction to the Police to stop harassing him and not to falsely implicate him in every case. Immediately thereafter, comes the subject instance of the petitioner being drawn into the web of proceedings. On merit of the matter, he would submit that a confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis to draw him in the web of crime without there being any corroborative material.

5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would vehemently refute the submission in contending that whether there is any material or not is yet to be investigated into. Accused No.1 during investigation or when the statement being recorded reveals the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is a rowdy sheeter. There are several cases against him being a rowdy sheeter. Therefore, he is necessary for an investigation in the least in the case at hand. The investigation is not conduced in the light of interim order granted in the year 2023 itself. Corroboration would get revealed only after the investigation. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

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

7. The afore-narrated fac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23811

A confessional statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot, in isolation without independent corroborative proof, form a valid basis for framing charges or maintaining criminal proceedings against another accused person.

Cases Referred (2)