Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2021 arising from Crime No. 65 of 2012, which alleged conspiracy and involvement in the murder of one Abdul Rehman alias Putha. The Court observed that all prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and no evidence remained against the petitioner to justify a continued trial. Justice M.I. Arun emphatically held that “no purpose will be served in continuing with the prosecution when there is no material evidence and all co-accused have been acquitted.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashing all proceedings against the petitioner pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.
Facts
The case stemmed from the murder of Abdul Rehman alias Putha on 13 March 2012, allegedly committed by a group of 19 accused persons. Among them, accused Nos. 1 to 6 were alleged to have physically carried out the murder, while others, including the petitioner (accused No. 7), were alleged to have conspired or abetted the crime.
The petitioner’s name surfaced solely in connection with the alleged criminal conspiracy. The charge sheet accused him of conspiring with the others to commit murder, but no overt act or direct participation in the execution of the murder was attributed to him.
The initial trial was registered as Sessions Case No. 63 of 2016 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. However, due to some accused absconding, the case was split into multiple sessions cases, including S.C. No. 160 of 2021, which concerned only the petitioner.
Issues
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the absence of any direct evidence or supportive witness testimony served the ends of justice.
- Whether the acquittal of the principal accused in the earlier sessions cases rendered the prosecution against the petitioner unsustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the only allegation made against him was participation in a criminal conspiracy, without any evidence of involvement in the actual commission of murder. He highlighted that during the trials of S.C. Nos. 63/2016, 79/2018, 29/2019, and 72/2019, all prosecution witnesses turned hostile and none deposed anything incriminating against him.
Further, he emphasized that accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 — who were directly accused of executing the murder — had already been acquitted, and the prosecution had failed to establish any conspiracy. The petitioner submitted that continuing the trial would serve no purpose and cause unnecessary hardship, as the State had no additional witnesses to examine or evidence to rely upon.
Hence, invoking Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought quashing of proceedings to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, did not dispute the petitioner’s contentions. The prosecution candidly admitted that all witnesses in the earlier trials — who were common to the petitioner’s case — had turned hostile. The prosecution also acknowledged that no further witnesses were available to establish the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy.
In light of these admissions, the prosecution could not contravene the petitioner’s submissions and conceded that the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain the proceedings against him.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the settled legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly but effectively when continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or when it is apparent that the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence.
Justice M.I. Arun reiterated that the fundamental test is whether the continuation of proceedings would serve any meaningful purpose in securing conviction or whether it would simply prolong harassment without evidence.
In the present case, since all principal accused had already been acquitted in separate trials involving identical witnesses and charges, the principle of futility applied. The Court relied on the doctrine that when the substratum of the prosecution collapses, the continuation of proceedings against co-accused with no independent evidence becomes legally untenable.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment, while not expressly citing external authorities, reflects consistent reliance on well-established principles from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on Section 482 CrPC. The underlying reasoning aligns with decisions such as:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 — which laid down illustrative categories where quashing is justified, including cases where allegations do not constitute an offence or where prosecution would be an abuse of process.
- R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 — holding that proceedings can be quashed where there is manifest lack of evidence or where continuation would amount to harassment.
By implication, the High Court’s approach in the present case follows these principles, ensuring that judicial process is not misused to perpetuate baseless litigation when the evidentiary foundation has already failed in related trials.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that all earlier trials — S.C. Nos. 63/2016, 79/2018, 29/2019, and 72/2019 — involved the same set of witnesses who had already been examined and had not supported the prosecution regarding the alleged conspiracy.
Justice Arun observed that the acquittal of the principal accused (Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6) for want of evidence effectively destroyed the prosecution’s case. As there were no new witnesses or additional evidence available, it would be purposeless to continue proceedings against the petitioner alone.
Quoting from the order, the Court held that “no purpose will be served in continuing with the prosecution against the petitioner when all the witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the principal accused.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the trial court.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 109, and 120(B) read with 149 IPC. It reaffirmed the principle that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on conjecture when the foundational evidence collapses, and that Section 482 CrPC serves to prevent injustice rather than perpetuate it.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the judicial duty to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. It demonstrates that the High Court will not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers when a prosecution has lost its evidentiary basis due to hostile witnesses and prior acquittals of principal offenders.
It underscores that mere allegations of conspiracy, unsupported by substantive evidence, cannot justify continuation of criminal proceedings. This ensures protection of individual liberty and upholds the sanctity of criminal justice by preventing unwarranted trials where the State’s case has already failed.
Judgments Referred
Although the order primarily relied on factual analysis, it resonates with principles from:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 — outlining grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
- R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 — emphasizing that inherent powers must be exercised to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Both precedents serve as the jurisprudential backbone for the Court’s reasoning in this case.
FAQs
Q1. On what grounds can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
When continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process, lacks prima facie evidence, or serves no purpose due to the collapse of the prosecution’s case, the High Court may invoke Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings.
Q2. Does the acquittal of co-accused affect pending trials against others?
Yes, if the acquittal is based on the same set of witnesses and evidence, and no new material exists against the remaining accused, the High Court can quash proceedings against them to prevent futile trials.Q3. What happens when all prosecution witnesses turn hostile?
If all witnesses turn hostile and no incriminating evidence remains, the prosecution’s case collapses, justifying quashing or acquittal to protect the accused from unnecessary prosecution.