MOHAMMED ALI @ DELHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is accused No. 2 in crime No. 56/08 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. After investigation a charge sheet is filed and included the offence under Section 302 IPC in addition to the above referred offences. Since the petitioner was absconding a split charge sheet was filed in S.C. No. 182/2008 against accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 and in S.C. No. 207/2010 against accused No. 1. On contest the sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Now a split charge sheet is filed against petitioner/accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 2124/2010. This Court in Crl. P. No. 5027/2013 enlarged the petitioner on bail. Petitioner contends that the prosecution is relying on the same evidence on which they had relied on in the earlier proceedings against the other accused. It is not shown to me what is the difference in the evidence against this petitioner. When the Sessions Judge has already evaluated the evidence available on record and acquitted the other accused then the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the same. In identical circumstances Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak v. State of W.B., 2007 15 SCC 305 held as under:

(2.) Accordingly, the following;