Devaraju Vs. State of Karnataka

Devaraju vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 03, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/935155

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/935155
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Jagannathan
Decided On: Jan 03, 2011
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3849 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devaraju

Advocate For the Petitioner: K. Ramegowda, Advocate. For the Respondent: Satish R. Girji, High Court Government Pleader.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Legal References

Reported In: 2011(1)KCCR646

Excerpt

.....the petition is disposed of finally in view of the short point involved for consideration. 2. the petitioner’s grievance is that, he and 14 other accused persons were the accused in cr.no. 224/1999 in respect of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 307 r/w 149 of ipc and the case against the accused persons other than the present petitioner was taken up for trial in s.c. no. 44/03 and the accused persons in the said case were all acquitted on the ground that the material witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile and the judgment of acquittal therefore was the result. 3. referring to the aforesaid judgment in the sessions case no. 44/03, submission now made is that, no purpose would be served in putting the present petitioner also on trial as the evidence is the same that led to the acquittal of all the other accused persons, merely because a split up charge-sheet is now filed against the present petitioner, no purpose would be served in permitting the proceedings to go on against the petitioner when the case ended in acquittal in respect of other accused persons. 4. above submission is also not seriously controverted by the learned government pleader and on a perusal of the judgment of the sessions court in s.c. no. 44/03 rendered on 9.8.2005, it is apparent that the sessions court acquitted all the accused persons of the offences mainly on the ground of material witnesses including the complaint having turned hostile and none of them have supported the prosecution case except the two doctors. 5. in the light of the order of acquittal being passed by the trial court, following the complaint and other witnesses turning hostile, i see no purpose in the case being proceeded with as against the present petitioner and therefore the proceedings in question are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. in the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings which are against this petitioner in cr. no......

Full Judgment

V. Jagannathan, J:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and the petition is disposed of finally in view of the short point involved for consideration.

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that, he and 14 other accused persons were the accused in Cr.No. 224/1999 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and the case against the accused persons other than the present petitioner was taken up for trial in S.C. No. 44/03 and the accused persons in the said case were all acquitted on the ground that the material witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile and the judgment of acquittal therefore was the result.

3. Referring to the aforesaid judgment in the Sessions Case No. 44/03, submission now made is that, no purpose would be served in putting the present petitioner also on trial as the evidence is the same that led to the acquittal of all the other accused persons, Merely because a split up charge-sheet is now filed against the present petitioner, no purpose would be served in permitting the proceedings to go on against the petitioner when the case ended in acquittal in respect of other accused persons.

4. Above submission is also not seriously controverted by the learned Government Pleader and on a perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 44/03 rendered on 9.8.2005, it is apparent that the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons of the offences mainly on the ground of material witnesses including the complaint having turned hostile and none of them have supported the prosecution case except the two doctors.

5. In the light of the order of acquittal being passed by the Trial Court, following the complaint and other witnesses turning hostile, I see no purpose in the case being proceeded with as against the present petitioner and therefore the proceedings in question are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings which are against this petitioner in Cr. No. 224/99 (C.C. No. 205/07) pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn). JMFC, Srinivasapaura, are quashed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2011 Same Parties Devaraju vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V. Jagannathan