Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G. Basavaraja, J.
The State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Shivan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2016
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Sri M.R. Patil, HCGP, for the Appellant; Sri Eugene Prabhu B, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal - Sections 399, 402 - The court discussed the acquittal of the accused under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and referred to various judgments including DEEPAK RAJAK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in 2007(15) SCC 305, HYDER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, UDUPI reported in ILR 2015 KAR 970, STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K. C. NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1822, and STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGEPALLY v. VADDE YERRA VENKATARAMANA @ RAJU & OTHERS reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3958
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved the arrest of accused individuals who were found unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and making preparations to commit dacoity. The trial Court acquitted accused No.6 based on the acquittal of accused 1 to 5 in a separate case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the acquittal of accused No.6.
Issues: The issues involved whether the State had grounds to interfere with the trial Court's order and what the final order should be.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the trial Court had rightly observed the facts and circumstances of the case and acquitted the accused. The court also noted that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 03rd February, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of 2015 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the order dated 03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of 2015 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15th February, 2014, on a credible information received by the complainant at about 7.45 pm that certain accused are making preparation for committing dacoity, the complainant and the staff attached to Srirampura Police Station rushed to the spot and found accused 1 to 6 have unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons like knife, iron rods, etc. at Sharada Samaja Road, Nagappa Block in Srirampura and were making preparation to commit dacoity and accordingly, they were arrested and deadly weapons were seized. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1 to 6. Since accused No.6 was not available to the trial Court, a separate CC No.19898 of 2014 was registered against him and after his arrest, he was committed to the Sessions Court in SC No.366 of 2015 and charges were framed under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, by order dated 03rd December, 2015 was pleased to acquit the accused No.6 on the ground that similarly placed accused 1 to 5 have been acquitted on 16th March, 2015 in SC No.866 of 2014. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of 2015, the State has preferred this appeal.
4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that impugned order passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused No.6 who is charged for the offence punishable under Section 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, is not legal and proper and same is not in accordance with law. He submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice and same deserves to be interfered with by this Court. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal.
5. Having heard the argument and on perusal of impugned judgment, the following points would arise for my consideration in this appeal:
1. Whether the appellant/State has made out a ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of 2015?
2. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
I have carefully examined the impugned order dated 03rd December, 2015 passed by the trial Court. The certified copy of the order Sheet pertaining to SC No.366 of 2015 reveals that the charge sheet was submitted by the concerned police against accused 1 to 6 and a case, for offence punishable under Section 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, was registered in CC No.11904 of 2014 on the file of XXXVI ACMM, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute that since accused No.6 was absconding, a separate case was registered in SC No.366 of 2015. Accused 1 to 5 were committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in erstwhile Fasttrack Court, Bengaluru City in SC No.866 of 2014, in which the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused 1 to 5. Since the accused No.6 was absconding, separate case came to be registered in CC No.19898 of 2014 and after securing the presence of the said accused, he was committed to the Court of Sessions and a case was registered in SC No.366 of 2015. It is not in dispute that the accused 1 to 5 are already acquitted in SC No.866 of 2014 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. Learned High Court Government Pleader has fairly submitted that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal against accused No.1 to 5. That on 03rd December, 2015, the
