Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V.HOSMANI
Basha @ Khaleel Basha, S/o. Ameer Sab – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Soraba Police Station – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
1. Challenging judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Sagar, in Crl.A.no.98/2016 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, in C.C.no.77/2008, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri PB Umesh, learned counsel appearing for Sri Ravindra B. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner submitted revision petition was by accused no.1 against concurrent findings convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1872, (' IPC ', for short) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one year each with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.
3. As per prosecution, on night of 25.09.2007, accused committed lurking house trespass by breaking open door lock and entering into room of Kummuru Government Higher Primary School and committing theft of one LPG cylinder kept there worth Rs.1200/-. And at 1:30 a.m. on 04.10.2007, when police on beat duty near Hospete Hakkalu and stopped Esteem Car, they found four persons inside car i
The prosecution must establish every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, including common intention among co-accused, for a conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Possession of stolen goods shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act requires corroborating evidence to establish the recovery of stolen property, necessitating scrutiny of witness credibility.
Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless judgments are perverse or unreasonable.
Possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt, and the absence of a complaint does not inherently discredit a credible witness's testimony.
Credible evidence can support conviction even without a complaint being lodged; presumption of theft established when stolen property found in possession of accused.
Insufficient evidence necessitates reversal of conviction under Section 381 IPC, highlighting procedural irregularities.
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
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
