Order to include JD(S) MLC Suraj Revanna as accused in 2019 case quashed

“The concerned court has erred in taking stray statements of witnesses which were completely contrary to what they had rendered at the time of investigation and it cannot become the fulcrum of an order of allowing an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.,” the bench said. It added, “The result of quashing the order would be that the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an additional accused.”

The 2019 incident

A BJP worker, Shivananda, had alleged that on December 3, 2019, he and his friends went to a farmhouse of one Santhosh, where Revanna and 150 to 200 others abused and threatened to kill Santhosh and another man, Girish, accusing them of leaving the JD(S) and joining the BJP.

Based on his complaint, the Channarayapatna rural police station registered a case against Revanna and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to murderous assault, injuring persons grievously, unlawful assembly and rioting.

Nambihalli village, where the alleged incident occurred, is located on the border of KR Pet Assembly constituency, where a by-election was being held at the time.

Revanna was named as an accused when the FIR was filed, but not in the chargesheet. The trial court framed charges against 13 accused on January 12, 2024, and the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, of whom 11 turned hostile and denied involvement of several accused.

On October 5, 2024, the prosecution filed an application seeking to draw Revanna back as an additional accused. This was allowed on February 7, 2025.

What the two sides argued

Advocate Bipin Hegde, appearing for Revanna, argued that his role was assessed during investigation and he was dropped from the accused list after the allegation was found to be baseless. Mere statements made during the trial by two witnesses without any corroboration would not mean that the petitioner should face trial, he added.

State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha opposed the plea saying the petitioner has been brought back to the web of proceedings relying on cogent evidence and he has to come out clean in a trial.

The bench referred to the evidence of the two witnesses and the impugned order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the prosecution. “The evidence that is brought during the trial which was the same at the time of recording of the statement earlier, does not become a higher decree of evidence for the petitioner to be brought back into the web of proceedings,” the bench said.