Cruelty, Attempt to Murder : Accused Absconding
Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE K. Sreedhar Rao
MOHAMMED ILIAS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA on 9 April 2001
Law Point:
Cruelty, Attempt to Murder : Accused Absconding : Case Split up and Charge Sheet Laid Against other Accused, who were Acquitted : Evidence Produced in case of Accused cannot be Different from One Produced by Prosecution against other Accused : No Possibility of Conviction : Proceedings Quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. State Public Prosecutor to take notice. The matter was taken up for final hearing. In the present proceedings, the continuation of trial against the petitioner in CC No. 1104 of 1998 is challenged on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulbarga.
2. The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against the other available accused 1 to 3 who faced trial in SC No. 24 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 1 to 3. The judgment of the Sessions Judge produced discloses that all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings MOHAMMED ILIAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 354 DIVORCE & MATRIMONIAL CASES 2001 were revived against him in the split charge-sheet. In view of the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3, the petitioner contends that the trial whatever proposed to be held against him, in the ultimate analysis, cannot have any different result other than the acquittal handed out to accused 1 to 3. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1104 of 1998.
3. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon the ruling of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State, 81 (1999) DLT 197=III (1999) CCR 707=2000 (1) Crimes 73 (Del.). In the said decision the rulings of the Supreme Court are also referred to and followed. In para 4 it is held thus :
“On perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 19.1.1998, it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries substained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (P.W. 2) and Smt. Asha Rani (P.W. 5) (wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 123/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.” In the instant case also the full-fledged trial was held against accused 1 to 3 in respect of the same offence and they were acquitted. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case in S.C. No. 24 of 1998. Therefore, in that view of the matter the proceeding in C.C. No. 1104 of 1998 is quashed.
Petition allowed.