No Man Can Be Tried for a Crime He Couldn't Possibly Commit: Karnataka High Court Quashes KCOCA Case Against Accused Already in Custody During Alleged Dacoity Conspiracy

"When the Petitioner Was Already in Custody, How Could He Assemble to Commit Dacoity?", In a significant rebuke to investigative excess and a reaffirmation of fundamental evidentiary principles, the Karnataka High Court quashed the entire prosecution against Sri Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil in Crime No.58/2017 and Spl.C.C. No.414/2017, ruling that the invocation of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA) was legally untenable as the only material against the petitioner was the voluntary confession of co-accused — which "cannot be the sole foundation of a criminal prosecution."

Justice M. Nagaprasanna drew a sharp line between admissible and inadmissible evidence, holding:

“The petitioner is dragged into the web of crime admittedly on account of voluntary/confession statement of the co-accused. This is what is held by the Apex Court to be impermissible in law.”

Court Begins with a Clear Query: “Was There Any Independent Material Against the Petitioner?”

The Court commenced its analysis with the most basic but essential question — what evidence existed against the petitioner? The answer, starkly, was none. The petitioner had been implicated entirely on the strength of a voluntary statement made by another accused during police custody, in relation to a dacoity allegedly being conspired in Crime No.58/2017.

But as the Court uncovered, Sunil Kumar was already in police custody — in the same police station — on the date when the alleged assembly for dacoity occurred.

“It cannot be said that the petitioner was either a part of preparation or assembly for the purpose of commissioning of dacoity.”

The alleged offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC (making preparation and assembling for dacoity) require physical presence, which was physically impossible for the petitioner who was in custody under judicial remand in a separate case.

“Only the Co-Accused Spoke His Name – But That’s Not Evidence”: High Court Rejects Confession-Based Charges

The Court emphasized that the only material against the petitioner was a voluntary statement of a co-accused, taken during police interrogation, and not supported by any independent or corroborative evidence. That alone, the Court held, “is not substantive evidence and cannot sustain a criminal charge.”

Relying on consistent precedent, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of Enforcement, the High Court observed:

“A confession made by a co-accused cannot be used against the petitioner in the absence of independent corroboration… The Apex Court has clearly held that such a confession is not substantive evidence.”

The Court reiterated the constitutional importance of this rule:

“To permit such evidence would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, as the person is being prosecuted without any lawful basis or evidence independently linking him to the crime.”

KCOCA Invoked Without Organised Crime Evidence – “A Case of Excessive Stretching”

Beyond the flawed reliance on a co-accused’s statement, the Court also noted a total absence of material to justify the application of KCOCA, which requires evidence of membership in an organised crime syndicate, continuity of unlawful activity, and prior chargesheets resulting in cognizance.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted:

“There is no iota of evidence indicating that the petitioner was part of any organised crime syndicate... the invocation of KCOCA provisions is thus nothing but a legal misadventure.”

The Court scrutinised the prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of KCOCA granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police and found that it was issued without any meaningful inquiry or specific material. Such procedural irregularity alone was enough to vitiate the invocation of KCOCA, but the Court found multiple layers of illegality in the prosecution’s case.

Parity With Co-Accused Whose Case Was Already Quashed – “Same Facts, Same Outcome”

Sunil Kumar’s case was identical to that of Accused No.11, Rohit, who had already succeeded in quashing the proceedings against him in W.P. No.16771/2017 and Crl.P. No.9819/2023. Both had been in custody during the alleged offence, and both had been implicated only by co-accused statements.

The Court declared:

“The findings rendered in the case of K.S. Rohit would become applicable on all its fours to the case of the petitioner.”

In fact, the Court noted that the petitioner’s position was even stronger, as he was not named in the original FIR and was added to the case only after the co-accused’s custodial confession.

Justice Must Override Technicalities – “Letting the Trial Proceed Would Be a Grave Miscarriage”

Recognizing that the petitioner had been dragged into a serious criminal prosecution under a special law, without any admissible or credible evidence, the Court made it unequivocally clear that allowing the trial to proceed would “amount to perpetuating injustice”.

“To compel the petitioner to stand trial on such frail grounds would be to subject him to a gross abuse of the criminal justice process.”

The Court also emphasized that criminal prosecution is not a tool of suspicion, and liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of unfounded assumptions:

“Criminal law must proceed on evidence. Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof.”

Proceedings Quashed, Liberty Restored

In closing, the High Court allowed the petition in full, declaring the charges under IPC and KCOCA as unsustainable, and quashing the proceedings in Crime No.58/2017 and Spl.C.C. No.414/2017.

The Court made it clear that its judgment applied only to the petitioner, and did not affect the trial or investigation in respect of other accused.

“It is made clear that this order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner alone and would not be construed to influence proceedings against others.”

Date of Decision: 7 November 2025