Conviction in criminal cases requires clear and specific evidence of each accused's role; lack of distinct actions precludes sustaining a conviction.

ORDER :

S. RACHAIAH, J.

1. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 4 before the Trial Court. They have been convicted for the offences under Sections 384 , 506, 511 r/w 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’).

Brief facts of the case

2. The complainant is a lawyer by profession. He is having office at K.S.Rao Road at Mangaluru. It is stated in the complaint that when he was in his office, four unknown persons trespassed into his office and threatened him to make payment of Rs.500/- as hafta by stating that they are the members of rowdy gang namely Ballalbagh. By that time, CW.6 visited the office, then, the unknown persons went away from the office. Again on the following day, around about 7.00 p.m., the accused went to the office of the complainant to ask hafta amount, the complainant closed the door and made them to go away.

3. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused stated to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences and went away from the spot. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police. Upon the complaint of the complainant, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.141/2008 against the accused for the above said offences and started investigation. After completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 6 witness as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3.

5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offences under Sections 384 , 506, 511 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced accused Nos.1 and 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 384 /511 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 4 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence this revision petition.

6. Heard Sri R B Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are against the evidence on record. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence of interested witnesses properly and recorded the conviction which is required to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are none other than the colleagues of PW.1, therefore, they are termed as interested witnesses. In fact, the defence of the accused was not considered by the Trial Court properly. The averments of the complaint discloses that three persons were present as on the date of alleged incident, however, case has been registered against four persons. The complainant admitted in his evidence that he was not aware about the identity of the accused persons prior to the incident. However, he learnt the identity through his typist namely Smt.Sandya Shetty. The said typist neither cited as a charge sheet witness nor examined to substantiate the said contention. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 ought not have been considered as gospel truth to record the conviction.

9. It is further submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court recorded the conviction based on the evidence of the interested witnesses without any corroboration which is erroneous and not proper and therefore, the c