Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.
Asif - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2014
Decided On : 09-03-2020
Rakshith R., Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant; Showri H.R., HCGP, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear and consistent case, including reliable evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime.
Headnote:
S.C. No. 20/2012 - Conviction under S. 395 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: S. 395 of IPC - The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense, focusing on the alleged involvement of the accused in the crime. The court highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including gaps in linking evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The court found serious laches and lacunae in the prosecution's case, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC, related to a case where the appellant and another accused were alleged to have committed dacoity by robbing a vehicle and cell phones from the complainant. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and material objects to prove the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious discrepancies and gaps in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court highlighted the absence of a test identification parade and raised doubts about the alleged involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged involvement of the accused in the dacoity, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to acquit the appellant was based on the serious laches and lacunae in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime, and absence of a test identification parade. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution failed to do in this case.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted from the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC, and the bail bonds executed by him were cancelled. The fine amount deposited by the accused, if any, was ordered to be refunded. The court also recommended an honorarium for the appointed amicus curiae.
JUDGMENT
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present appellant is accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 20/2012 disposed of by the learned III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) by Judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2014 and Order on sentence dated 22.02.2014, whereunder, the present appellant as accused No. 1 and another accused Hyderali who was accused No. 5 were convicted for the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC and were sentenced accordingly. However, the other three accused i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted from the alleged offence.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 29.08.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., within the limits of respondent - KRS Police Station Brundavan Garden Park, accused Nos. 1 to 5 with an intention to commit dacoity went to CW-1 Mehabub Peer, driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03/TV-0299 and took away the said vehicle along with CW-1 and snatched his Nokia make cell phone and one Zen cell phone and by pushing CW-1 from the vehicle on the way, took away Tata Sumo vehicle also and thereby have committed offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC. Since the accused did not plead guilty, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14, got some documents marked at Exs. P1 to P17(a). Material Objects as per MO-1 to MO-5 were marked. After hearing both side, the Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment of conviction on 21.02.2014 and order on sentence on 22.02.2014 convicting the present appellant and accused No. 5 for the offence punishable under S. 395 IPC. It is challenging the said Judgment of conviction, accused No. 1 has preferred this appeal.
3. The respondent - State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
5. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned Judgment and the records from the trial Court.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
7. Even though the present appellant was being represented by his counsel, however, considering the absence of said learned counsel when the matter was taken up for final hearing, this Court, by its order dated 04.03.2020, proceeded to appoint amicus curiae for the appellant in this matter. Said learned counsel Sri Rakshith R. the amicus curiae, in his arguments, though does not dispute the alleged occurrence of the incident of robbing of the complainant of a cell phone and some cash amount, however, seriously disputes the alleged involvement of the present appellant in the said crime. He submits at the outset, that in view of the fact that accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 among the five charge-sheeted accused having been acquitted from the charge, the present appellant and accused No. 5 alone cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 395 IPC. He further submitted that even though the identity of the accused was not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint, still no test identification parade was conducted by the I.O. As such, the very identity of the present appellant/accused and his involvement in the alleged commission of crime is doubtful. He also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle alleged to have been taken over by the accused from CW-1 was being recovered by the police during the investigation. He further submits that the alleged recovery of the cell phone was at the instance of accused No. 5 and not accused No. 1. With this, he submitted that in view of the existence of serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, the Judgment of conviction is required to be set aside.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that even though test identification parade has not been conducted but the
