Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.
Narasimharao @ Appi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2017, 568 of 2017
Decided On : 24-07-2020
Conviction - Section 395 IPC - Recovery of incriminatory material - Test Identification Parade - Identity of accused - Inadequate evidence for conviction
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC based on a complaint filed by the victim stating robbery by six unknown persons. The prosecution relied on witness accounts, recovery of cash and jewellery, and Test Identification Parade for conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in witness accounts and inadequate evidence for the identity of the accused. The recovery of incriminatory material was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court set aside the conviction of accused nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 and ordered their release.
Issues: Inadequate evidence for identity of accused, insufficiency of incriminatory material, and inconsistencies in witness accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The primary evidence for identity of accused was weak, and the recovery of incriminatory material was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No.535/2017 filed by accused no.4 was allowed. Criminal Appeal No.568/2017 filed by accused nos.1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 was allowed in part. Accused nos.3, 4, 5, and 6 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and ordered to be released.
JUDGMENT
S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. - Aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 17.03.2017, and sentence dated 18.03.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in S.C.236/2012 convicting the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, whereby the accused nos.1 to 6 have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the aforesaid offence, Crl.A No.535/2017 is preferred by accused no.4, while Crl.A No.568/2017 is preferred by accused nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
2. Complaint came to be filed by one K.H.Srinivasa Murthy (PW.4) stating that he was residing in his Farm House built in the property bearing Sy.No.25 of Dodda Margonahalli. That on 08.05.2012, at about 6.45 p.m., he found his dog barking and when he went out of the house to enquire, he noticed a person hiding. Immediately thereafter, two other persons caught hold of him and under threat of injury by knife, other persons entered his house and took away the gold chain and ear studs of PW.4's wife. They further took away a sum of Rs.4,500/- cash that was with the complainant and his SBM ATM Card. They also took away the key of the complainant's car and after tying up PW.4 and his wife, later fled away. On such complaint, Ex.P4, complaint was lodged. Thereupon, FIR as per Ex.P5 came to be registered by the Turuvekere Police Station in Crime No.110/2012 on 09.05.2012 for an offence under Section 395 IPC against six unknown persons.
3. During the course of investigation, accused nos.1 to 6 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the case committed as per the committal order dated 16.08.2012 in C.C.No.299/2012. As the accused pleaded not guilty for the charges that were framed, the case went for trial and the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses as PW's.1 to 14 and got marked 79 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.79 and 20 material objects as per M.O's.1 to 20 and closed their side. The accused have denied all the incriminating evidence pointed against them but have not led any independent evidence.
4. Accused nos.3 to 5 were arrested on 13.05.2012, accused nos.2 and 6 were arrested on 23.05.2012 and accused no.1 was arrested on 08.07.2012.
5. As regards accused nos.2 and 6, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was seized from accused no.2 and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was seized from accused no.6 under mahazar Ex.P1 on 23.05.2012 and seized cash was marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 respectively. As regards accused No.1, pursuant to his voluntary statement, there was recovery of jewels from M/s.Annapoorneshwari Jewellers as per M.O.3 and M.O.4. Under mahazar, Ex.P2, there was further recovery pursuant to the statement of accused no.1 who led the investigating officer to his house in his village at Ajjanahalli and M.O.5 to M.O.11 consisting of jewellery, silver lamps, mobile, ATM Card were recovered. The hand kerchief which was recovered was marked as M.O.12. Further, as per Ex.P26, seizure mahazar, there was recovery from accused no.3 of currency amounting to Rs.4,000/-. As per the same mahazar, there was further recovery of a sum of Rs.4,000/- from accused no.4 and a sum of Rs.4,000/- from accused no.5.
6. During the process of investigation, after having apprehended the accused, Test Identification Parade was got done, in which PW.4 has identified the accused and the Taluka Executive Magistrate has issued the Identification Parade report as per Ex.P7 to 24 and Ex.P 28 to 63.
7. Pw.4 (complainant) and PW.7 (wife of PW.4), PW.8 (niece of PW.4) stated to be the eyewitnesses to the said incident have deposed as regards their account regarding commission of the crime.
8. Pw.14 is also an eyewitness insofar as he has deposed that he was the owner of Sainath Bakery and had helped accused nos.1 and 2 upon their request to draw money without realizing that they were committing criminal acts. PW.14 has also identified the accused nos.1 and 2.
9. The prosecution has also relied upon Ex.P76 to 79 which ar
AI
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
