Robbery under Section 392 IPC requires evidence of force or fear towards the victim; absence of such evidence warranted a conviction under Section 379 IPC instead.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Accused No.1-Ramesh Poojary has preferred the appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order and sentence dated 15^th February, 2013 passed in S.C. No.109 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Udupi (for short "the trial Court").

2. The case of the prosecution is that, Circle Inspector of Police, Udupi Circle, submitted charge-sheet against accused 1 to 3 for offence under Sections 413 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . It is by the prosecution that on 24^th September 2009 at about 7:30 pm, near Police Quarters at Doddannangudde of Shivalli, the accused No.2 Ravi Poojary along with accused No.1-Ramesh Poojary, came on a motorcycle No.KA-20/Q-7494 and when they came near the scooter of Ramachandra, restrained him and snatched the vanity bag containing golden articles worth Rs.5,34,000/-, one Samsumg mobile handset and cash of Rs.700/- from CW2- Harinakshi while she was going to her house along with her husband on motorcycle as a pillion rider, and fled the scene along with accused No.1, thereby, committed offence punishable under Sections 392 read with IPC . The accused No.3-Umesh Kamat received the stolen articles by purchasing the same from accused 1 and 2, knowing fully well that the said articles were stolen property, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 413 of .

3. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter registered as SC No.109 of 2010. The learned trial judge has framed charges against the accused for the alleged commission of offences and the same read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded, not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PWs1 to 11 and marked 30 documents as Exhibits P1 to P30 and nineteen material objects were marked as MOs1 to 19. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but have not chosen to lead any defence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and passed sentence for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under read with Section 34 and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each payable to PW2 Smt. Harinakshi. The trial Court acquitted accused No.3 for offence punishable under Section 413 of . Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused No.1-Ramesh Poojary, has preferred this appeal.

5. Though this appeal is filed by an Advocate, but subsequently he has not appeared before the Court to prosecute the case. Hence, as per order dated 18^th July 2025, this Court has appointed Sri H.S. Shankar as Amicus Curiae, to address his arguments.

6. Sri H.S. Shankar, Amicus Curiae, would submit that absolutely there are no cogent, corroborative and acceptable legal evidence to convict the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has snatched the chain from the possession of PW2-victim, then also the offence under read with is not applicable. Absolutely, there are no essential ingredients to attract the alleged commission of offence under read with Section 34 of . If the contents of the complaint and the evidence are read together, only the offence under Section 379 will be attracted and the said defence is punishable with only imprisonment of three years or fine or with both. The accused No.1 has already undergone judicial custody for a period of 2 year