Court may quash proceedings if co-accused are acquitted and substratum of case is lost, preventing a fair trial.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.2310 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the original 3^rd accused in Crime No.59/2014 registered by the Kasaragod Police Station, Kasaragod, against the accused persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The case against the petitioner was split up and the trial as against the accused 1, 2 and 5 was conducted by the the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod (‘Trial Court’) in SC No.117/2015 and they were acquitted by Annexure-A1 judgment. The case against the petitioner has been now been re- transferred from the Long Pending Register and is yet to be re-

numbered.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C. that, although he did not withstand the trial, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial as against the accused 1, 2 and 5, and by Annexure A1 judgment, the said accused persons have been acquitted, since the ocular witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. In view of Annexure-A1 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Hence, it would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over again. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.

4. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 14.01.2014, at around 21:35 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and had committed rioting and also wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friends and caused hurt to them with hands, wooden sticks and iron rods. They also caused hurt to the defacto complainant and his friends, and attempted to murder them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not participated in the trial. The Trial Court proceed the trial as against the accused 1, 2 and 5 and, by Annexure A1 judgment, had acquitted the above accused persons, since all the ocular witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution. The Trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences.

7. In Moosa V. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT

552], a full Bench of this Court has held that, in a case where the substratum of the case is lost by the acquittal of the co- accused, the inherent power of this Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings against the other accused persons. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a plethora of precedents on the above question of law.

8. I have carefully analysed the allegations in Annexure-

A3 FIR, Annexure-A4 Final Report and the findings in Annexure-A1 judgment.

9. On evaluating the findings in Annexure A1 judgment, I find that although the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 5, they had turned hostile to the prosecution. Likewise, it was found that PW1 had no consistent case. Taking into consideration the oral testimonies of the above alleged eye witnesses, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above accused persons had committed the above offences.

10. In light of the findings in Annexure-A1 judgment, I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. It would be a sheer waste of judicial time to conduct the trial all over aga