Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
YALLAPPA @ KACHAYALAYA S/O. JATAPPA GOLLAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100004 OF 2018 | 397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. R. H. ANGADI
For the Respondents: SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must absolve the accused of the charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 457 and 380 - Acquittal of accused in theft case - The Trial Court convicted the accused; however, findings were based on unreliable evidence including hostilities of key witnesses and failure to prove a credible chain of circumstances - The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but was found to have erred in not appreciating the evidence properly - The High Court found reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. (Paras 27 and 28)
(B) Revision - Scope of court in revision proceedings - The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Yallappa, was convicted for committing theft, accused of stealing valuables from a house. The prosecution's evidence was predominantly based on locked doors being broken and the items being stolen, leading to the inquiry and prosecution against him. The appellate court upheld the conviction despite numerous inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The evidence was found lacking in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the granting of benefit of doubt to the accused.
Issues: The core issue revolved around whether sufficient evidence was presented to uphold the conviction of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due to inconsistencies in evidence, especially related to the recovery of stolen items and witness credibility, the accused must be acquitted.
Result: The revision petition is allowed, acquitting the accused of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the theft incident and police action. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding prosecution evidence and recovery. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and doubts regarding conviction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26) |
| 4. final thoughts on the evidence and case outcome. (Para 25) |
| 5. conclusion and judgment outcome. (Para 28) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2015, passed in passed in C.C. No.13/2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II Court, Dharwad (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) confirmed in Crl.A.No.67/2015 dated 03.05.2016, by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court).
2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.
3. That accused were charge sheeted by the police Sub Inspector, Sub Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC as because, one complainant by Somalingappa Channabasappa Antaratani, filed a complaint before the Sub-Urban Police Station, stating, that on 08-04-2012 he had been to Hubli along with his family members. When he returned to home at 10 p.m., he noticed breaking of door of his house on the back side and also opening of the almeras kept in his house and all the articles and the clothes were scattered. He noticed the theft of silver articles, 2 gold coins, cash of Rs.14,000/- from his house. So also, pachche stone worth Rs.6000/-, 2 small rings each weighing 5 grams that is valuing Rs. 13,000/-, 1 Dabu, Udadara, Attaradani, 2 small lotaS, one big silver lota, 3 spoons, 1 silver plate, 2 silver big lotas, 5 Aarishina Kumkum battalu, 1 gilaganji, 1 krishna idol, 1 Olalli, total worth of Rs.30,000/- had been stolen. According to him the incident of theft has taken place in between 11.00am and 10.00pm on that day. He lodged a complaint before the Sub Urban police station on 09-04-2012 which was registered in Cr.No.56/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. During the course of the investigation, the accused was apprehended and at his instance certain articles were seized which are marked as MOs.1 to 5. After completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the accused.
4. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offences. Supplied the copies of the police paper under Sections 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. On hearing the arguments of both the side, the charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Before the Trial Court, to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution, in all examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.12 and got marked documents as per Ex.Ps.1 to Ex.Ps.13 and also MOs.1 to 5. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
7. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable U/s. 457 of IPC and further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.
8. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged by the accused before the First Appellate Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.67/2015. The learned First Appellate
