IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2014 (C)

BETWEEN:

HYDARALI S/O.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT.D.NO.8, KEB CIRCLE, I CROSS, KALYANAGIRI, MYSORE

571426.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. B LETHIF .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE BY K R S POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT, REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, Digitally signed by BANGALORE-571426.

LAKSHMINARAYAN N L K o a c rn at a i t o a n k : a High C ourt of …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

CRL.A. FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21/22.2.14 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.20/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER DIRECTED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Appellant/Accused No.5-Hydarali has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 21^st February, 2014 and order on sentence dated 22^nd February, 2014, passed in SC No.20 of 2012, by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Circle Inspector of Police, Srirangapattana, filed charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29^th August, 2010 at about 8.30 pm, within the limits of Brindavan Garden coming under KRS Police Station, accused 1 to 5 with an intention to commit dacoity, went to CW1-Mehabub Peer, driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03/TV- 0299, and took away the said vehicle along with CW1, snatched his Nokia make cellphone and one Zen Cell phone and by pushing him away from the vehicle on the way, took away Tata Sumo vehicle also, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused, same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, fourteen witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 14, got marked seventeen documents as Exhibits P1 to P17 and five material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 5. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Indian Penal Code was recorded. Accused have denied the evidence appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard on both sides, the trial Court acquitted accused 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and convicted accused 1 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused No.5 has preferred this appeal.

4. Sri B. Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already acquitted the accused No.5-Asif in Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2014 decided on 09^th March, 2020. He would submit that, on the ground of p