State of Karnataka v. Somappa & Ors.

Judgment

2. Somappa S/o. Mallappa Shiragaavi. Aged about 40 years, 0cc. Trade, Rio. Hole-Hosur. Prabbakar Sb. Gopal Descorkar, Aged about 33 ears, 0cc. Compounder, RIo. Hale-Belgaum.

3. Mahadev Bhagawanth Bangodi, Aged about 22 years, 0cc. Fruit Trader, R/o. Beigaum.

4. Mallappa (cI Babu SI Basappa Kuri. Aged about 45 years, 0cc. Fruit Trader, R/o. Belgaum. Babu S/o. Rama Hosurkar, Aged about 33 years, 0cc. Driver, R/. Belgaum.

5. (By Sri. L.K. Gurav, Adv.) RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.03.2006 PASSED BY SESSIONS JUI)GE & P.O., VrC., 107/2005, ACQUI’fl’ING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 399 OF I.P.C. IN S.C. NO. JAMKHANDI, THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents in respect of an offence punishable under Section 399 of the [PC. ) H C 9 ) ) C H S ) C - ) ) C C ) C CC ’ ) C S1C - — a ) C ) C c H ) C i C ) ) C C 2 ( H ) 9 C H ) C ) C 2 ( ) C ) C ‘ ’ — 9 C C H ) C ) ’ C H 1 ) C 3 C a ‘ . ) C r H I ) C H ) C H ) ’ C a “ 9 C C a ) C “ . . S - H ) ) C C c ’ ) ) C C ) C H ) C a ) C C C • 9 ) ) C C H ’ 9 ) C ) C H . ) C ‘ — ) C H H . i C — ’ 9 ) C H H ) C ) i C C 2 ( ) C H I _ : C ) C . H ) C ) C C C H ) ) C C ’ S H ) C < ’ r H ’ 9 ) ) C C H ) C H a 2 ( ) C ) ) i C C C ’ r ) C H ) C ) C H “ ) C H ) C , 9 ) C 9 9 H ’ 9 ) C C ) ) C C H — ) C ‘ i C — C C H H 9 H ) C : I ) ‘ — 9 ‘ ) ) C C ) C 9 i C ) C H H ” 9 C ) ) C < - ‘ ) C ’ 9 . ” H H a H ) - 2 C ) C C C - . 2 < ( 2 ( - ‘ ) C ) ) C C ) ) C C H ) C C C H ’ 9 ) ) C C 9 ) ) C C C < 9 h T ( ) h “ C ) C 9 ’ 9 ) ) C C H r ) ‘ ) I C H 2 9 ) 9 C H . ) C ) ) ) C C C ) C ) C ) C H ) C c ) C 9 ) C H 9 C C ) C tHC r ) ) ) ) C C C C C ) C )H HC C C ) ) C ) C ) C 2 ( ) C , H ) ) ) C C C ) C , ) C ‘ )H C ) C C C ) C H ) C i C ) ) C C ) ) C H ) C ) C a O C H 2 ) C ) ) C C H 2 H H H - H ’ ) C I C c , ) C H ) ’ C 0 ) C , H H H ) C ) ) ) C C C ) C I C ) C 3 I ) 2 C ) 1 0 , - 9 ) ) C C < ) 2 C 2 ( ‘ C C D C ) ) ) C C C 2 C C H HC ) ) C H - a • ) C ) C “ ‘ H ) C . H I O - C ) C H H D C H ) — C ) C - ) — C H ) C C C ) ) C C 1 ) i C C ) O c ) — C ) C H 2 ( ç H D ) C ” n r c ‘ 1 H H ) C ) — I 9 ) C ’ - 9 ) C I ) C H ) ) • C C % ) — ) C 2 H : 9 ) C 0 O C H ’ 9 C I 2 ( C a ) C 9 I 2 ( 2 ( ) C ) C c 9 2 ( 1 * ) C 2 ( ) C H ) C H . — 2 — ( c C ’ 9 2 ( ’ 9 C C C ) C I C ‘ H ) C C C ’ 9 , H I I C ) C H I C 2 . ’ 9 c ) C . , - C C H i ) C H % ( 2 ( a ‘ HHC ) H C ) ) ) C C DH C : 9 — H : I H D C i c ) C c ) C ‘ , . ) ) C C 9 H ’ 9 4 tj p r ttmi f ti c t’dc rn e ord ft i r 1 5( it C S( or dot ht i tn I h , c I u ed iersi s A 15 n f hx D1 ipt piodutd b ut a t td tht dcfts in rh prosutuon case tist pt to disheliet the ntire prosecution cts P1 Ic ned t ii ft d th rc f TC rder€ d that the p m ib I t ir used ‘ in pr st n at th pla c rnd ini i i n t b t t p Sc eutioi ai not be possiblc ir d it I Ti e ice sc I Cl n ‘I acquittal to be interfered with by this Court in this appeal, it is to be kept in view that the interference by the Appellate Court is called for, only when the view

taken by the trial Court appears to be of improbable one. If on the other hand, the evidence on record permits the view taken by the trial Court as a possibility, the Appellate Court cannot interfere merely because an” other view is also possible.

6. Having thus heard both sides, I have examined the evidence on record and find that there is number of infirmities in the prosecution case, which led to the trial Court giving the accused the benefit of doubt. First of the infirmities is that, the possibility of the accused preparing themselves for dacoity at a very busy place, that too round 9.00 pm was ruled out by the trial Court. Secondly, the accused persons have taken up the defence that, they have parked their vehicle on a public place in Mucihol town. but the police wok the a 6 vehicle and kept it in the police, station and the accused were also detained for some time and thereafter, accused were fined Rs.300/ - and they were asked to go out of the police station. Ex.D1 is the receipt issued to the accused. All these would show that the presence of the accused at the time and date, as alleged in the prosecution case is also doubtful. The third infirmity is that, the Police Officers. who went to the spot were actually found to be in the police station and therefore. the trial Court held that the likelihood of the police staff going to the spot and catching hold of the accused is also an impossibility, because all the staff and S.H.O are found in the police station at 9.00 pm on the date of the alleged incident. Another reason for the trial Court to disbelieve the prosecution case is that, though the accused were found at about 9.00 am, yet prosecution case is that the accused are preparing for the dacoity in the early hours of the day. tikiig n t c th in ‘Ec f*) zs in thc c iderci ne I en n. d its ftelcrcd 4pc 1itrtfu,t %d%C th otncfii of doubt to inc List I anti hc c re acquitted The aboi e conciusiot I I n ii C ur on thc basis of thc idencc on rcco: zntcrfcrcd ith Ixeause the finding rceordcd it be ‘ ‘e prvi”* lit itatuit tetfcrcn s illedfo t