Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11477
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P.SANDESH, J
REVANASIDDAPPA @ RENUKAPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 855 / 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K.
For the Respondents: SMT.RASHMI JADHAV
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused must provide a credible explanation for possession of stolen property.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 379 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for theft - The appellant was convicted for stealing a motorcycle, with evidence primarily from the complainant and police witnesses, despite some witnesses turning hostile - The Trial Court’s conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from six months to three months due to lack of evidence for additional seized motorcycles. (Paras 2-20)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused must provide a credible explanation for possession of stolen property. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of stealing a motorcycle parked at an educational institution. Following a complaint, the police seized the motorcycle from the appellant, who failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its possession. The prosecution presented several witnesses, although some did not support the case.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction under Section 379, although the sentence was modified to reflect the appellant's time served and lack of corroborating evidence for additional thefts.
Issues: The main issues included whether the conviction was warranted based on the evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution established the appellant's guilt for theft through credible evidence, despite some witnesses turning hostile. The court also noted that the absence of corroborative evidence for other thefts warranted a reduction in the sentence.
Result: Criminal appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the prosecution's case revolves around the theft of a motorcycle. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the evidence and prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence and the validity of the conviction. (Para 7 , 8 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. the decision to reduce the sentence based on lack of evidence. (Para 19) |
| 5. final order reducing the sentence and granting set off. (Para 20) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that one S.C.Nagarajaiah filed a complaint on 25.10.2009 at about 11:30 a.m. alleging that a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-02-ED-1320, which was parked at Sridevi Institute of Technology by his son Kiran on 22.10.2009 was missing from that parked place and after thorough search, he did not find the motorcycle. Hence, filed a complaint and the police have registered the case in Cr.No.340/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and took up the investigation and visited the spot and prepared the mahazar. That on 22.10.2009, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station received credible information and he was on patrolling duty at Ring Road near Alankar Daba. At that time, the accused came on a Hero Honda motorcycle from Batawadi side and the said motorcycle had no registration number. Therefore, they stopped him and enquired. During enquiry, the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to the motorcycle and they came to know that it is a theft article. Hence, they secured the panchas and prepared the mahazar and seized the motorcycle. During further investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Tumkur Rural Police Station seized 13 motorcycles from the house of the accused and he also recovered 30 motorcycles sold by the accused. As the complainant identified the motorbike seized on 22.10.2009 as his motorcycle, the statement of witnesses were recorded and after the completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 413 of IPC .
3. The Trial Judge secured the presence of the accused and the learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11 and material object M.O.1 was marked. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, recorded the 313 statement of the accused and the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case that the vehicle was seized at the instance of the accused and negatived the point for consideration No.2 and convicted the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel contend that P.W.1 is the son of the complainant and the original complainant died during the trial. Though the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, they have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution and hence the very theory of seizure of the motorcycle is not proved. The learned counsel contend that the very evidence is not clinching against the accused. P.W.6 participated in the investigation along with P.W.7. The learned counsel contend that the recovery is not proved since P.W.2 and P.W.3 have turned hostile. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are official witnesses and their evidence is not credible and hence it requires interference of this Court and set aside the conviction for
