SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH 
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Bheemashankar @ Bheemu S/o Yamunappa Hulimani - Appellant 
Versus 
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal No. 200073 of 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
Decided on : 17-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)

Conviction under Section 397 of IPC requires evidence of a deadly weapon; court held that evidence sufficed for conviction under Section 392 instead.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 397 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 357 and 428 - Conviction for robbery - Accused originally convicted under Section 397, but appealed for reconsideration arguing misconduct and improper appreciation of evidence - Trial court's reliance on inconsistent witness testimony and failure to establish use of deadly weapon - Conviction adjusted to Section 392 with fine imposed. (Paras 18, 20, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for robbery after allegedly assaulting the complainant and stealing valuables. The incident was reported the following day, and the accused was arrested based on evidence, although there were inconsistencies in witness statements and complaints about the police investigation.

Findings of Court:
The judgment against the appellant for Section 397 was deemed unsupported, with the court finding sufficient grounds for a conviction under Section 392 instead, alongside a monetary penalty.

Issues: The court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 397, if the judgment suffered legal infirmity, and whether the sentence was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a primary charge under Section 392, it was improper to convict under Section 397, which necessitates a display of a deadly weapon. Evidence indicated a lesser offense had occurred, thus warranting the adjustment.

Result: The Criminal Appeal was allowed in part, and the conviction was set aside for the offense under Section 397, substituting it with a conviction under Section 392.

Table of Content
1. description of the incident and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. argument on conviction inconsistencies. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 17)
3. court's reasoning on charge specifications. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. final decision and order regarding conviction. (Para 21 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Veeranagouda M.Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. The present appellant is the sole accused, who is convicted in S.C.No.78/2017 and sentenced as under:

ORDER

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees only) for the offence punishable under Section 397 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . In default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

On such deposit of fine amount, entire fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees only), shall be paid to injured/PW.1-Pramod T.V. as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The accused shall be entitled to the benefit of set-off for the period of detention undergone as under trial prisoner in terms of 428 of Criminal Procedure of Code.

Issue conviction warrant against accused to jail authority.

The order of release of M.Os.1 to 3 gold ornaments and cash in favour of PW.1/complainant before trail Court on 13.02.2012 is made absolute.

As could be seen from the charge-sheet materials and case papers Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-32/W-0011 was seized from the accused which was used by accused for the commission of offence. The said vehicle was released in favour of accused by the trial Court by its order dated 05.06.2012. During the course of trial, the photographs of said vehicle marked as Ex.P.7. In view of the same, aforesaid vehicle is confiscated to State. The accused shall surrender the vehicle along with original documents.

Furnish copy of the Judgment to accused free of cost forthwith.”

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. Sri. Pramod T.V., being injured in an unfortunate incident on 19.01.2012 when himself and his colleague had been to Century Hotel to have dinner lodged a complaint with Brahmapur Police Station.

3.2. In the complaint it is alleged that, after finishing the dinner, complainant and his colleague left to their respective houses at about 10.30 p.m. and when the complainant had reached Gubbi colony on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53/Q-9393 in front of Center Kamat Hotel, a person who was riding another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/W-0011 intercepted him and slapped the complainant. He held the head of the complainant and pushed his face to a pillar and pressed his neck and robbed the neck chain weighing 19.64 grams, finger ring weighing 5 grams and another ring weighing 2.5 grams and cash of Rs.4,500/- which was in the pocket of the complainant.

3.3. After so robbing the complainant, the said stranger left the place. Based on the complaint, Bramhapur Police registered the case on 20.01.2012 and investigated the matter, inter alia arrested the accused and recovered the robbed articles from the custody of the accused based on his voluntary statement.

3.4. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed which comprised recovered articles, statements of the witnesses and medical certificate of the complainant. Presence of accused was secured and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. charges were framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty.Therefore, trial was held.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, in all nine witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 comprising of complainant, panch witnesses, doctor, who examined the complainant and investigation agency. Prosecution relied on eight documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.8 besides marking 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top