44 Years Too Late: Karnataka High Court Quashes State's Oldest Criminal Case to Save Judicial Time

Post By 24law
December 29, 2024

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the oldest criminal case in the State, emphasizing that it would amount to a waste of precious judicial time if the petitioner were allowed to stand trial 44 years after the alleged crime. A single-bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, observed that the evidence necessary to substantiate the charges was no longer obtainable, rendering a trial futile.

The petitioner, Chandra @ V. Chandrashekara Bhat, sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him accused No.3 in Crime No.66 of 1979 in connection with a case registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 307, 326, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background

The case originated from a 1979 complaint alleging that the petitioner who was 22 years at that time, along with other accused individuals, trespassed into the complainant's property, attacked the occupants, and inflicted grievous injuries. The incident led to the death of one individual. Following an investigation, charges were framed, and the trial court convicted two of the accused while acquitting the others. However, the petitioner, listed as accused no. 3, was declared absconding and was not part of the trial.

The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the case against him for decades, as he was neither arrested nor served with summons. He argued that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish his involvement in the alleged crime. Further, the petitioner highlighted that he had been gainfully employed in Bengaluru during the intervening years and had no knowledge of the pending case.

After trial in S.C.No.42 of 1979, two of the accused got convicted and two get acquitted. Criminal Appeal was preferred by those convicted in Criminal Appeal No.254 of 1980 before the High Court and on 24.11.1981 the appeal was partly allowed by acquitting Kitta, accused No.2 in the charge sheet and confirming the sentence against Seetharama Bhat, accused No.1.

Thus, the legal battle culminated in so far as it pertained to the one convicted. The acquittal of the two accused had also become final. The petitioner is 68 years was not aware of the case, is hunted by the Police for the reason that he has to undergo trial in a split up case drawn against him showing him to be absconding at the time of trial.

Court’s Observations

Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that the trial court had already acquitted two co-accused, stating that their involvement could not be established due to unreliable evidence and the inability to identify them as participants in the crime. The High Court remarked that similar reasoning applied to the petitioner’s case, as his identification at the scene of the crime remained doubtful.

“The witnesses who deposed 44 years ago are impossible to secure today, and the reasons rendered by the trial court for acquitting the other accused are equally applicable to the petitioner. It would only be a waste of judicial time, which is too precious, if the petitioner is permitted to be tried 44 years after the crime,” the Court observed.

The Court further cited precedents, including Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, to reinforce that if the possibility of conviction is remote and the evidence is the same as that previously considered insufficient, continuing the proceedings serves no purpose.

Consequently, the Court held, “If the afore-narrated facts are noticed, the impossibility of conviction of the petitioner looms large. Therefore, if acquittal is eminent in a trial, permitting such trial against the accused would be nothing but waste of precious judicial time as is observed hereinabove. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, permitting a trial, which would be of no utility would only be an exercise in futility. Thus, ends the oldest case, in criminal justice system, of the State, perhaps, which is 44 years old.” and thereby allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Chandra @ V.Chandrashekara Bhat. v. The State Of Karnataka & Anr.