Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.
Krishnappa and others —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2005 (c)
Decided on : 23-08-2012
Robbery - Criminal Law - IPC Section 394 - The judgment discusses the incident of robbery on the terrace of the victim's house, the evidence presented by witnesses, and the court's decision to convict the accused under Section 394 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident of robbery on the terrace of the victim's house, resulting in injuries to the victims. The accused were caught red-handed and convicted under Section 394 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC based on consistent and cogent evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. The court also upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each imposed by the lower court.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the identification of the accused, and the severity of the sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and unchallenged testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the recovery of stolen items, and the absence of ill-will or animosity between the witnesses and the accused. The court also considered the gravity of the offence in upholding the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the lower court were confirmed. The accused were directed to serve the sentence.
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the two accused persons in S.C. No. 532/2003 before the Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.2.2005 passed in the said case convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the said offence.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was, at about 6.00 a.m. on 8.8.2000, P.W. 1-K.Nagabhushan, resident of B.K. Nagar, 1st ‘D’ Main Road, 15th Cross, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, went to the terrace of his two storied building and after finishing regular morning exercise and shaving, when he was about to come down to the house, the two appellants came there, put a rope around his neck and tried to strangulate him and started forcibly taking him down the staircase, however, on account of slipping on the steps, he relieved himself from the pressure of strangulation and screamed for help. On hearing his screaming sounds, his wife-Yashodamma (P.W. 2) and daughter-Priyanka (P.W. 3) came there and on seeing P.W. 2 wearing gold chain and ear-rings, Accused No. 1 snatched the gold chain as well as ear-rings and while pulling-out the ear-rings forcibly, P.W. 2 sustained injury and on hearing sounds of galata, P.W. 4-Krishnamurthy Reddy, P.W. 5-Prasanna and others who are neighbourers, came there. In the meanwhile, on being informed by some one, P.W. 6-Thibbaiah, ASI on duty in Hoysala Van and P.W. 9-B.K. Boregowda, Head Constable on duty in Cheetha Vehicle also came there. Both the accused were caught-hold and the gold chain snatched from the person of P.W. 2 was found in the pocket of Accused No. 1. Thereafter, both the accused were taken to the police station, where P.W. 1 lodged a report about the incident as per Ex.P.1 before P.W. 10-B. Narasimhaiah, PSI of Yeshwanthpur Police Station and based on the said report, the case in Crime No. 491/2002 came to be registered and investigation was taken-up.
3. During investigation, P.W. 10-B. Narasimhaiah visited the scene of occurrence, drew-up the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and recovered the rope-MO.1 used for strangulation. On personal search of Accused No. 1, gold chain-MO.2 was recovered under mahazar-Ex.P.3. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The two injured namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had been treated by P.W. 8-Dr. Shylaja in K.C. General Hospital. The wound certificates issued by P.W. 8 in respect of P.Ws. 1 and 2 were collected as per Exs.P4 and P5. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be laid for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC. Though the accused persons were initially remanded to judicial custody, later they were released on bail.
4. On committal of the case, the appellants appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the charges levelled against them, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and relied on documentary evidence-Exs.P1 to P10 as well as MOs. 1 to 3. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence. Their defence was one of total denial and that of false implication.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and accordingly, both the accused were convicted for the said offence. However, the learned Sessions Judge found no material in respect of the charge levelled against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, therefore, t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
