The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.925 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. RAGHU @ ARUN KUMAR, S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O CHIKKANNA COMPOUND, BIDIRUMALE THOTA, TUMAKURU-572101. (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. STATE BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE, TUMAKURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF JUDGMENT OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.102/2013 IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 454 AND 380 OF IPC AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU DATED 23.10.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.65/2018. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
accused No.1 admitted the guilt and having considered the other material, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent with each other. Though there are some minor discrepancies elicited during the course of evidence, the same will not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution and it is bound to occur when the incident was taken long back and when the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 witnesses were examined belatedly and the Court also cannot expect the mathematical niceties while appreciating the evidence on record and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the order of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Point No.(ii): 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year four months with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC and the same is confirmed in Crl.A.No.65/2018. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 on 29.09.2012 at 1.00 p.m. lurked into the house of C.W.1 Dr. Niranjan situated on Gangothri road, SIT layout, Tumkur Town by breaking open the back door to commit an offence of theft. The accused persons after entering into the house of the complainant got opened the door of cupboard and iron almirah with the help of screw driver and committed the theft of golden and silver articles worth of Rs.4,51,000/-. Both the accused were apprehended by C.W.28 in Tumkur Rural Police in Crime No.199/2012 and recovered the stolen articles on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused persons. C.W.29 after completion of investigation has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter the Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 15. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 16 and other evidence of Investigating Officers, convicted and sentenced accused No.2 and accused No.1 pleaded guilty before the Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.65/2018 and the Appellate Court on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing such conviction and sentence and the same is sustainable and it does not require any interference. 4. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and also confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire recovery is not proved. Though the prosecution examined P.W.14 mahazar witness, his evidence is not credible and the evidence of P.W.13 in no way assist the case of the prosecution and there are inconsistent evidence. The evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.12, who are the mother and son, are relative witnesses and their evidence not supports the case of the prosecution. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court fails to consider the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and committed an error in convicting and sentencing and confirming the same and hence it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State would contend that the Trial Court has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1, who is the owner of the jewellery shop and P.W.6 victim, who lost the jewels and she identified the jewels which were subjected to theft in her house. Apart from that, recovery is also proved by examining P.W.16 and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 corroborates with each other and the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved and hence the Trial Court has not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 committed any error and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of material available on record not committed any error and hence it does not require interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State and also considering the material on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Courts below committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from any infirmity, legality and correctness? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, this Court has already made it clear with regard to the charges leveled against this petitioner. This petitioner along with accused No.1 lurked into the house of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 P.W.6 and committed the offence of theft by breaking open the back door of the house. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.16. P.W.1 is the jewellery shop owner with whom this petitioner along with accused No.1 went and pledged the articles and P.W.1 identified this petitioner saying that he came along with accused No.1. P.W.6 informed the police about the loss of golden articles and also lodging of the complaint and the Tumkur Police informed about tracing of the stolen articles after three months of the incident and immediately she went and identified the articles as per Ex.P.2 photographs. The police also drawn the mahazar on 01.10.2012 as per Ex.P.7 and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.6 and theft taken place in their house. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.12 as well as the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.16, who was the then CPI of Tumkur, Rural Police, who arrested the accused persons and recorded the voluntary statement as per Exs.P.13 and 14. The accused also disclosed the place of concealment of golden and silver articles, which was stolen from the house of the complainant by leading the witness to the place where they committed the theft and showed the house of the complainant and spot panchanama was drawn in terms of Ex.P.12 and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 witnesses also speaks about the same. It is important to note that P.W.16 took the accused to the place of concealment of golden articles as per the directions of the accused and accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein took the police and others to his rented house situated at Bidirumele and produced 27 golden and silver articles from the rice bag and the same was seized by drawing panchanama in terms of Ex.P.5 since the accused was apprehended in another case, wherein he revealed about committing of theft in the house of P.W.6. Having re-assessed the material on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case and proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court in paragraph No.21 observed that the findings of the Trial Court is consisting of sound reasoning and it is not perverse and hence the question of interference does not arise. The Trial Court also taken note of the recovery of stolen articles and the prosecution has also proved the spot mahazar Exs.P.2 and 7 by examining P.Ws.7, 8 and 14 in corroboration with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and confirmed the order. 9. Having considered the material available on record and the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7014 CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021 I do not find any perversity in the findings of both the Courts in considering the material on record, since P.W.16, who is the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and recovered the golden articles at the instance of the petitioner and the witnesses have deposed regarding recovery. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in re-appreciating the material on record and this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction only when the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not considered the material on record in proper perspective and if the order suffers from any legality and correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. The records are also received and having gone through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, each witnesses evidence corroborates with regard to act of this petitioner. The Trial Court also taken note of other circumstances while convicting this petitioner since
Decision
ORDER Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36