The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 226 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI.KRISHNA @GOPI @ NANJUNDA S/O RAMAIAH @ HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 118. (BY SMT. SWATHI R BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. JAYANTHI R, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SHRAVANABELAGOLA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT JUDGE AND THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL IN C.C.NO.8/2012 DATED 07.03.2020 AND 11.03.2020 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.149/2020 DATED 15.07.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND AT JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS. JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, SESSIONS SITTING HASSAN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.149/2020 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan sitting at
Facts
Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.8/2012 dated 07.03.2020 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: One M.Manjegowda-PW.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P1 before the Shravanabelagola police on 23.11.2010 alleging that on 22.11.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. at Bekka village, some unknown person by lurking and breaking open the lock of Somalingeshwara Temple has committed a theft of silver mask of the deity wroth Rs.10,000/- and also Hundi of the temple. On the strength of Ex.P1, the said police registered a case - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 against unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Cr.No.119/2010 as per Ex.P6. During the course of investigation, the said police arrested the accused after 1½ years and laid charge sheet against him on 10.01.2012 for the aforesaid offences before the trial Court. 4. In order to prove the charges levelled the against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 so also got marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7 and also identified material objections i.e., MOs.1 and 2. 5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 to IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC. Further, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 380 of IPC and ordered that both the sentence shall run consecutively. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.149/2020. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence passed by the trial Court by directing that the sentence imposed by the trial Court shall run concurrently. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
accused, absolutely no other prima facie evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the act. 12. Such being the position, in my considered view, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred while convicting the accused since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In the case on hand, there is no such clinching evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that since both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred while convicting the accused, interference is required in the impugned judgments by this Court. According, I proceed to pass the following: NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 - 8 -
Arguments
Heard Smt. Swathi R.Bhat for Smt. Jayanthi.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda, learned HCGP for the respondent. 8. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, while passing the impugned judgments, failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. According to her, the complaint lodged by PW.1 against unknown person and the accused was arrested after lapse of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 1½ year from the date of the incident. Further, at the instance of the accused, the silver ingot was recovered from PW.5 after lapse of 1½ years. Whereas, PW.5 categorically stated that before 4 to 5 years, the accused sold the silver mask to him. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery aspect. She further contended that the accused was arrested based on his voluntary statement in some other case registered by the Hassan Police Station. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, she prays to allow the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the evidence on record, passed a reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference by this Court. According to her, all the witnesses i.e., PW.1 to 5 and 7 have supported the case of the prosecution and PW.1-complainant and PW.2-priest of the temple have identified the silver ingot, which was recovered at the instance of the accused from the shop of PW.5. As such, the circumstance of recovery is clearly established by the prosecution. Further, PW.1 and PW.2 identified the accused. In such circumstances, the prosecution - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 has proved the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. As could be gathered from the records, PW.1 has lodged a complaint on 23.11.2010 before the respondent-police against unknown persons alleging that the silver mask of the deity and the Hundi stolen by unknown persons. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. After 1½, the Hassan Police arrested the accused in connection with some other crime and based on his voluntary statement, he was implicated in the present case. Though PW.1 and PW.2 identified the accused, the same is after 1½ years from the date of incident and admittedly, they were not known the accused at the time of lodging the complaint. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.5, who is the receiver of the stolen articles at the instance of the accused i.e., Mo.2- silver ingot. According to him, 4 to 5 years prior to 2014, the accused sold the silver mask to him and the same was converted into silver ingot. Though PW.1 and PW.2 identified silver ingot, admittedly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14710 CRL.RP No. 226 of 2022 the stolen article was the silver mask. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the recovery of MO.2. Additionally, PW.7 has stated that Hirisave Police transferred the file pertaining to Cr.No.152/2010 to Shravanabelagola police in the year 2011. Hence, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner except the voluntary statement of the
Decision
ORDER i) ii) iii) iv) v) The revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.8/2012, which was modified by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.149/2020 are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him on due identification. vi) Registry is directed to return back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5