Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14777 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O. CHIKKAVENKATAGIRIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DYAVARAHALLI VILLAGE, JALIGE POST, BENGALURU RURAL- 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, Digitally BENGALURU RURAL, signed by LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH COURT BUILDING, High Court of Karnataka DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THIMAIAH @ THIMMEGOWDA S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT PANDITAPURA, KUNDANA HOBLI DEVNAHALLI TALUK -2-
3. NAGESHGOWDA S/O. N. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT BOMMAVARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI
4. ANADAGOWDA S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOOUT 48 YEARS R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE JAALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 110
5. GOVINDA RAJ S/O. GURUMURTHY AGED 43 YEARS
6. MUNIRAJ S/O. SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
7. SHANTAKUMAR S/O. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R5 TO R7 ARE R/AT DYVARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
8. BYREGOWDA S/O. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS -3- R/AT BYRADENA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
9. R. MANJUNATH S/O. N. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BOMMAVARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI
10. NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE KATAPPA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT SOOLUKUNTE VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI,
11. VENUGOPAL @ GOPI S/O. SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PANDITAPURA KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
12. SURESH S/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE JAALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 149
13. CHETHAN KUMAR S/O. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS -4- R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 149
14. SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KUNDAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
15. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS KUNDAPURA HOBLI
16. SRI. VENKATESHA S/O. GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KUNDAPURA HOBLI
17. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. KATHE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS KUNDAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
18. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS -5- KUNDAPURA HOBLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.59/2010 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PROSECUTION/RESPONDENT NO.1, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.59/2010, insofar rejecting the -6- application filed by the learned SPP under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for the purpose of de-novo trial, is assailed in this petition preferred by the defacto complainant.
2. The charge sheet was filed against accused
No.1 to 14 for the offences Punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 307, 114, 120B, and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, and Section 3(1)(2), (10) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. PWs.1 to 31 were examined by the prosecution.
Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence of PW.1, an application was filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently accused Nos.15 to 19 were summoned as additional accused and charges were framed against them.
4. Prosecution filed an application under Section 319(4) of Cr.P.C., seeking de novo trial and sought to summon PW.1 for further examination. -7-
5. The learned Special Court, taking into
consideration that PW.1 was examined on 13.10.2015, and on the basis of his evidence, application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was allowed and accused Nos.15 to 19 were added and arraigned in the case and charges were also framed and thereafter, PW.1 was again examined in chief on 02.12.2022 and he was cross-examined by the accused and evidence of other witnesses were also recorded, declined to entertain the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
6. It is noticed that, the application was filed
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for further chief of PW.1 on 29.08.2024, on the ground that overt acts of accused Nos.15 to 19 are not elicited, however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2024 and again one more application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling PW.1 for further examination in chief.
7. The prayer in the application for summoning
PW.1 and for a de novo trial cannot be allowed. The Apex -8- Court in 'Shashikant Singh V/s. Tarkeshwara Singh and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 738 has held at paragraph No.9 as under:-
“9. The intention of the provision here is that where in the course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears to the court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. At that stage, the court would consider that such a person could be tried together with the accused who is already before the court facing the trial. The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the proceedings right from the beginning have mandatorily to be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. In short, there has to be a de novo trial against him. The provision of de novo trial is mandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a person so brought before the court. It would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses for the cross- examination of such a person. They have to be examined afresh. Fresh examination-in-chief and not only their presentation for the purpose of the cross- examination of the newly added accused is the mandate of Section 319(4). The words “could be tried together with the accused” in Section 319(1), appear to be only directory. “Could be” cannot under these circumstances be held to be “must be”. The provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the court when order under -9-
Section 319(1) was passed, the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the opinion earlier formed by the court on the basis of the evidence before it that the newly added person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order for his being brought before the court.”
8. From the above decision, it is clear that a
de novo trial after an additional accused has been summoned can be conducted as against the said accused, and not against all the accused. In the present case, it is not in dispute that as against the accused who are arraigned as additional accused i.e. accused Nos.15 to 19, P.W.1 has been further examined in chief and he has also been cross examined, which suffice the mandatory de- novo trial provisions. There is no merits in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63