SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 322

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Thimmareddy & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Decided On : 21-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Court must discus and analyze the evidence in entirety.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – PW19 stating that accused persons were talking in public place – He did not hear what they talked – Merely because there was a dacoity soon thereafter, does not prove conspiracy – In absence of any direct or indirect evidence, charge of conspiracy not made out. (Para 8, 9)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 165 and 166 – Procedure laid down for recording voluntary statement of accused not followed – Accused from other PS were arrested without following section 166 – Details of panchnama also not produced – Trial Court holding the offence not established beyond reasonable doubt – High Court not discussing the evidence in entirety – Believing evidence of so-called eye witnesses as gospel truth – Identification of accused persons doubtful – Conviction by High Court – Not sustainable. (Para 19, 21, 31)

       (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Altogether eight persons were accused of committing offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120-B IPC.

       The Sessions Court had acquitted all the accused person.

       The State preferred appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC. During pendency of the appeal, one of the accused persons died.

       Appeal was heard qua remaining seven accused persons.

       The High Court convicted five of the seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120- B of the IPC

       Out of the five accused convicted, only three, A-1, A-2 and A-5, have filed this appeal.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter was heard finally.

3. Instant is an appeal filed by three persons who were accused of committing offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120-B IPC along with five others. After the trial of these accused persons, the Sessions Court had acquitted all the accused person holding that charge under the aforesaid provisions had not been proved against these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The State had questioned the validity of the judgment of the trial court by preferring the appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

During the pendency of the appeal, one of the accused persons, namely P.Laxman (A-3) died. Appeal was heard qua remaining seven accused persons. The High Court vide its judgment dated 1st December 2010 has convicted five of the seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120- B of the IPC and have imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. They have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each for the aforesaid offences and in default of such payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

The persons who were convicted are accused No.1 to 5, 7 and 8. In respect of accused No.4 and 6, the judgment of the Sessions Judge is maintained holding that the charges against them are not proved and appeal in respect of the said two persons is dismissed. As mentioned above, out of the five accused convicted, only three have approached this Court with present appeal, who are A-1, A-2 and A-5.

4. The case of the prosecution has been stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment, which can be reproduced without any fear or contradiction, is as follows:-

"On 8.10.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.36/3453 was proceeding on the Manvi-Raichur Road near Kapagal village. At that time, accused No.4 and accused No.6 who had conspired together andplanned to commit dacoity, gave information to accused No.1, accused No.2, accused No.3, accused No.7 & 8 and all of them committed the offence as per their plan.

Accordingly, they went by bus from Gadwal and travelled in the Raichur Mantralayam-Hubli bus as passengers. A-2 by holding a sickle to the neck of the driver PW.2, asked him to stop the bus by assaulting him and threatening to injure him. Immediately the bus was stopped. Accused No.5 took the knife and accused No.1 took dagger and pressed on the chest of PW3 and threatened him with dire consequences. Then, accused No.3 robbed the suit case of PW6 and A-7 took out a knife and threatened PW15, Udaykumar, who suffered injuries on his left hand. A-8 snatched a bag containing money from PW1. Then A-1, A-5 and A-8 robbed the two suit cases of PW13 Jagadeesh and PW7 Jeelani.

They also snatched the bag of PW20 Hanumanthappa. A-1,A-7 and A-8 snatched the cash bag from the complainant namely the conductor of the bus. They went at a distance opened the suit cases, took away the money and threw away the articles. Thereby all the accused committed dacoity of an amount of Rs.4,47,100/-. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Manvi Police Station and lodged a complaint. PWs.2, 6,7,13 and 15 accompanied him. The statements of PWs.2,6,7,13 and 15 were also recorded. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.182/2004 was registered by the Manvi Police Station for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 397 IPC and investigation commenced.

Thereafter the accused were arrested and a sum of Rs.28,000/- was recovered from A-1, a sum of Rs.54,000/- from A-2, a sum of Rs.32,000/- from A-3, a sum of Rs.36,000/- from A-4, a sum of Rs.35,000/- from A-5, a sum of Rs.12,000/- from A-6, a sum of Rs.500/- from A-7 and a sum of Rs.9,600/- from A-8. The weapons used in the offence was recovered on their voluntary statement. Various articles were also recovered. On completion of investigation, a charge





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top