SADAKATHULLA @ SHOUKATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) The State had registered a case on the basis of a complaint by one Supriya D'Souza, on the allegation that one Simon D'Souza was her father and she was living with her mother Helen D'Souza and her sister Savitha. It transpires that Simon D'Souza used to go to Mangalore Central market for his business every day at about 4.00a.m., and return by 12 noon. On 19.3.2008, he had left home at about 4a.m. and at about 6 a.m., it transpires that the complainant received a call that Simon D'Souza had not reached the shop. Therefore, she had made inquiries with the neighbourers and after sometime, one Vighnesh came to the Complainant's house and informed that Simon D'Souza had fallen along the road and there were injuries on his face. When the complainant and her mother went to the spot, they found the body of Simon D'Souza by the side of the road. There was a wooden club apparently used to cause injuries on the head of D'Souza and he had apparently died. They had also found a T -Shirt at about 8 feet away from the dead body, which was blood -stained and the cash bag that he was carrying was missing and therefore, they had lodged a case against unknown persons for having committed the murder of D'Souza. It transpires that after investigation, accused nos.1 to 3 were arrested on the allegation of having committed the murder of D'Souza. It transpires that the present petitioner was named as accused no.4 and since he was missing, the case has been split up. Accused nos.1 to 3 stood trial and ultimately were acquitted of the charges. It is later that the present petitioner has been arrested and produced before the court and is required to stand trial.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be an exercise in futility in prosecuting the petitioner as the prosecution would rest its case on the very evidence that was tested against the other accused and therefore, the end result is foregone conclusion and it would be waste of time and effort to proceed with the trial against the present petitioner. The learned Counsel would submit that in a catena of decisions, in similar circumstances, this court as well as other courts have held that the proceedings could be set at naught and consequently, seeks quashing of the proceedings.