MANIKANTA @ MANI @ KUMARA S/O. LATE ARMUGAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY - 560068 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the accused in crime No. 94/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 399 and 402 IPC Since the petitioner was absconding, the case was split and proceeded against the other accused in S.C. No. 921/2007. The/Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 22.03.2010 in S.C. No. 921/2007 acquitted the other accused. Now a split case is filed against the petitioner in S.C. No. 306/2009. The petitioner is now under custody. The petitioner contends that the prosecution is relying on the same evidence which they had relied on in S.C. No. 921/2007. Therefore the benefit of acquittal in S.C. No. 921/2007 is to be extended to the petitioner. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak Vs. State of West Bengal, JT (2007) 9 SC 31 held that if a similarly placed co -accused in a case on same set of facts and on similar acquisitions is acquitted, the benefit of the decision can be extended to the accused. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of acquittal in S.C. No. 921/2007. Accordingly, the following;