Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Manjunath @ Hemanth – Petitioner
Versus
The State by Police Sub-Inspector Hire Hadagali Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.2216, 2218, 2221 of 2011
Decided On : 27-05-2020
Indian Penal Code - Section 420, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397, 401 – Appeal against conviction - Rigorous imprisonment - Whether judgment and conviction passed against revision petitioner is liable to be quashed for non-compliance of Section 273 of Criminal Procedure Code and trial conducted against revision petitioner vitiates - Whether Trial Court and Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting revision petitioners and sentencing them for offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court by exercising revision jurisdiction - Whether Trial Court and Appellate Court ignored material on record and wrongly appreciated evidence and if any Judgment of conviction and confirmation is against record this Court can exercise its power within scope of revision jurisdiction to consider material on record - Factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that accused persons/revision petitioners herein along with other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cheat complainant called him near bus stand of village and gave an impression that they got gold coins which was found by them while digging basement of house for Ashraya Yojana and they intended to sell same - It is case of prosecution that at first instance accused gave five gold coins which were genuine in nature and same was subjected to appraisal and it was confirmed that same are gold coins and thereafter made complainant to believe that entire gold coins to tune of grams are genuine – However same were brass quoted with gold and cheated complainant by collecting a sum – Hence case was registered against these petitioners for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC – Held, Said contention also cannot be accepted for reason that when said revision petitioner was secured and a separate charge was framed he denied charges leveled against him but he has signed charge as well as plea - Said fact has been appreciated by Appellate Court and rejected claim of Revision Petitioner – Hence revision petitioner again cannot contend that is different - No doubt he has relied upon Exs.D1 to D3, but categorically admitted that Exs.D1 and D2 are genealogical tree and Caste Certificate were issued at instance of revision petitioner - No doubt Ex.D3 -Transfer Certificate discloses name - When he categorically makes signature both in plea form and charge as he cannot blow hot and cold and contend that both persons are different and identity has not been proved - Said contention also cannot be accepted and both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have applied their mind and appreciated material available on record and comes to conclusion that ingredients of Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC has been proved - Court have already pointed out scope of revision is very limited - Court do not find any material irregularity committed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court in appreciating evidence available on record - Evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and official witnesses PWs.10 and 14 and other circumstantial witnesses PWs.11 and 12 corroborates each other and hence very contention that there is no other circumstantial evidence against revision petitioners also cannot be accepted - In circumstances taking into consideration material available on record court of opinion that both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not committed any error in appreciating evidence and hence court do not find any grounds to exercise revision jurisdiction to set aside order of conviction and sentence - Hence there is no merit in revision petitions - In support of his contention he relied upon Judgment in case - No doubt Court can invoke Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code and to grant benefit under said proviso and having taken note of facts and circumstances of case on hand accused persons have deceived and cheated complainant by securing a huge amount of Lakhs and while exercising powers under Section 360 Court has to take note of facts and circumstances of each case and there is no reason for applying Section 360 and Court has to take note of gravity of offences and also on facts and circumstances of case it is nothing but a heinous offence and cheated complainant and hence it is not a fit case to invoke Section 360 to grant benefit as contended by revision petitioners and hence Judgment is not applicable to case on hand – Hence contention of revision petitioners cannot be accepted – Criminal revision petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
These criminal revision petitions are filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., by accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively, challenging the common judgment of conviction dated 10.6.2010 passed in C.C.Nos.482/2008 and 843/2009, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Huvina Hadagali, convicting the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months and also questioning the confirmation of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.Nos.58/2010 and 59/2010 passed on 7.7.2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court -III at Hospet.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons/revision petitioners herein along with other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the complainant called him near the bus stand of Holalu village and gave an impression that they got 2½ kgs. of gold coins which was found by them while digging the basement of the house for Ashraya Yojana and they intended to sell the same for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution that at the first instance, the accused gave five gold coins which were genuine in nature and the same was subjected to appraisal and it was confirmed that the same are gold coins and thereafter made the complainant to believe that entire gold coins to the tune of 2 kgs. 650 grams are genuine. However, the same were brass quoted with gold and cheated the complainant by collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the case was registered against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and accused Nos.3 and 4 were absconding. The Trial Court subsequently split up the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 and proceeded against accused Nos.1 and 2. After examining some of the witnesses, accused No.3 was arrested in connection with other case and he was secured through body warrant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial in C.C.No.482/2008 and accused No.3 subsequent to his securing, was subjected to trial in C.C.No.843/2009. However, common judgment was pronounced after recording the evidence.
4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 6(a). Accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to 3. The prosecution relied upon M.Os.1 to 3. The Trial Judge after recording the evidence, subjected accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter heard both the prosecutor as well as the defence counsel and convicted the accused and sentenced accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.58/2010 and accused Nos.2 and 3 filed their separate appeal in Crl.A.No.59/2010. The Appellate Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petitions are filed before this Court.
6. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2216/2011 mainly contended that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the very seizure of five gold coins which are marked as M.O.1 and seizure of M.O.2 gold coated brass coin weighing about 2½ kgs. has not been proved by the prosecution. The spot panchanama Ex.P2, seizure panchanama Exs.P3 and 4 have not been proved by the prosecution since the witnesses who have been examined as P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution.
7. The identification of accused No.1 at Mangalore jail is not in accordance with law and the identification of accused No.1 by the witness in the Court is inadmissible. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that the revision peti
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
