Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
Vasanta W/o Rajesh Upadyay – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and the initial conviction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. counsel's arguments presented before the court. (Para 5) |
| 3. failure of the prosecution to provide adequate evidence. (Para 6 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
The revision petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1875/2018 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalabuargi are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2019, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section s 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year each and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years each and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC with default sentences, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.51/2019 by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi vide judgment dated 02.01.2021.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 25.09.2017, accused Nos.1 to 3 have criminally trespassed into the house of PW.1 by
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to errors in evidence and witness credibility, leading to acquittal.
Courts can affirm convictions where prosecution evidence is mutually corroborative, and sentences can be refused to run concurrently based on the nature of offenses.
The courts upheld a conviction under Section 379 IPC due to insufficient evidence for the original charges while emphasizing reliance on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was upheld due to substantial evidence supporting the accusations against the accused.
The revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse, and recovery of stolen property is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The court affirmed the conviction under IPC Sections 457 and 380, emphasizing the reliability of witness testimonies and the admissibility of obtained evidence.
The court reinforced the validity of eyewitness testimony in affirming convictions under IPC sections for burglary and theft.
(1) Disclosure statement – While recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be sole basis for conviction – It is not substantive evidence.(2) Presumption ....
The court upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.
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
