Allowed

Thayamma @ Rudramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2012CRL.RP/415/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner for theft. Finding that reasons for acquitting a co-accused applied equally to the petitioner, the court held that interference was warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail/surety bonds dissolved; fine refunded.

Thayamma @ Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

¶3

B E F O R E

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.415/2005

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt.Thayamma @ Rudramma, W/o Nanjundaiah, aged about 30 years, R/at Shrikanth Nilaya, Srikanth Electricals, Girija Shankar Layout, Anekal Taluk. ...Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri M.Narayana Reddy, Adv.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

The State of Karnataka By Anekal Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)

¶13

This Crl.R.P. is filed U/S.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the judgment of conviction order dated 29.9.2001 on the file of the Prl. C.J (Jr.Dn) & JMFC., Anekal, in C.C.No.737/96, in so far as it is concerned to the 1^st accused and set aside the confirmation order passed by the Dist. Judge, Fast Track Court-III, B'lore Rural Dist., in Crl.A.No.45/01, dated 31.12.2004.

¶14

¶15

This Crl.R.P. coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner faced prosecution in C.C. No.737/1996, on

¶18

the file of the JMFC, Anekal, for the offences punishable under Ss.454, 380 read with S.34 of IPC, was found guilty. She was convicted and sentenced. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.45/2001 by the learned District Judge, Bangalore Rural District.

¶19

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 02.09.1996, at about 12.00 noon, petitioner / accused No.1 entered the house of PW-2, situated at Mirza Road, Anekal and allegedly committed theft of gold bangles, necklace, a pair of ear drops and a single strand gold chain. On hearing the sound of opening the Godrej almirah, PW-2 who was washing the clothes in the backyard, came inside and saw accused No.1 standing in the room and questioned as to what she was looking for.

¶20

¶21

It is alleged that the accused No.1 replied, that she had come to meet PW-2 and hurriedly left the place. PW-2 got suspicion about the behaviour of accused No.1, opened cupboard of the almirah and found bangles, necklace, ear drops and a gold chain missing. She immediately went to the house of accused No.1, who did not respond. After PW-2’s husband / PW-1 returned from the office, PW-2 informed him about the missing gold ornaments and also told him that it is accused No.1 who had entered the house. It is alleged that they asked accused No.1 to return the gold ornaments and waited for a few days and since accused No.1 did not return the gold articles, PW-2 lodged the complaint on 09.09.1996. Case came to be registered in Crime No.154/1996. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and one Rathnamma / accused No.2. In response to the same, both the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. To prove the case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9, marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs 1 to 6. Accused were examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. However,

¶22

¶23

petitioner subsequently got herself examined as DW-2 and accused No.2 got herself examined as DW-1. After hearing, learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty. Accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss.454 and 380 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence under S.454 IPC and pay fine of `1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a further period of 6 months. She was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence under S.380 read with S.34 IPC and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 6 months. Accused No.2 was also convicted and separately sentenced.

¶24

Feeling aggrieved, accused No.1 filed Crl.A.45/2001 and Accused No.2 filed Crl.A.43/2001, in the Sessions Court, Bangalore Rural District. Both the appeals were dismissed by separate Judgments.

¶25

Accused No.2 filed Crl.R.P.1218/2005 assailing the said Judgments and Orders. The said petition was

¶26

¶27

allowed on 03.04.2008 and the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside. Accused No.2 was acquitted of the charges levelled against her.

¶28

Accused No.1 has filed this criminal revision petition assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶29

Sri M. Narayana Reddy, learned advocate

¶30

contended as follows:

¶31

(i) The alleged offence having taken place on 02.09.1996, complaint Ex.P1 having been filed on 09.09.1996, there being inordinate delay, the Courts below have failed to examine the said aspect in the correct perspective and the findings recorded are perverse and illegal.

¶32

(ii) There is no credible evidence placed on record by the prosecution to hold the petitioner guilty in respect of the charged offence. The contradictions, embellishments and

¶33

¶34

improvements have neither been noticed nor correctly appreciated.

¶35

(iii) The alleged recovery has not been established in accordance with law. The Courts below have failed to notice that the panchas are interested witnesses and their evidence being untrustworthy calls for rejection.

¶36

(iv) The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶37

(v) Accused No.2 having been acquitted and the order passed on 03.04.2008 in Crl.R.P.1218/2005 having become final, the impugned Judgments and Orders, which are illegal, warrant interference.

¶38

Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that, there is concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below with regard to the guilt of the petitioner – accused No.1 and the record of the case having been correctly appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and there being

¶39

¶40

concurrent finding, no interference in the matter is warranted. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the impugned Judgments and sought dismissal of this revision petition.

¶41

Perused the record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

¶42

“ Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, impugned herein, warrant interference?

¶43

Sri M. Narayana Reddy, while arguing the

¶44

matter for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner – accused has not claimed MOs 1 & 2 as belonging to her, since her case is that they were planted to falsely implicate her in the matter. Submission of learned counsel that MOs 1 and 2 does not belong to the petitioner / accused No.1 stands recorded. MOs 3 to 6 which were the subject matter of consideration in Crl.R.P.1218/2005 filed by accused No.2 were also not claimed by accused No.2 as belonging to her and her case also was, that the same were planted to falsely implicate her in the matter. Thus,

¶45

¶46

MOs 1 to 6 have not been claimed as belonging to either of the accused.

¶47

By Judgment dated 29.09.2001, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty. Both the accused were convicted and sentenced. Accused No.2 questioned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.43/2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Bangalore Rural District. Accused No.1 assailed the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.45/2001 in the Sessions Court at Bangalore Rural District. Both the appeals were assigned to FTC-III for consideration and decision. Since both the accused had assailed one and the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the appeals ought to have been considered together and decided. Instead, Crl.A.45/2001 appeal filed by accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner was decided on 31.12.2004 and the appeal filed by accused No.2 i.e., Crl.A.43/2001 was decided on 14.03.2005.

¶48

¶49

The reasons which have weighed with the learned Appellate Judge to dismiss both the said appeals are virtually one and the same. The reasons assigned for dismissal of Crl.A.45/2001 on 31.12.2004 found at paras 4 and 6 to 9 have been re-stated in paras 4 and 6 to 9 of the Judgment dated 14.03.2005 passed in Crl.A.43/2001.

¶50

Accused No.2 having questioned the Judgment dated 14.03.2005 passed in Crl.A.43/2001 by the learned Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Bangalore Rural District, in Crl.R.P.1218/2005, the revision petition was allowed on 03.04.2008 and the said order has attained finality.

¶51

Since the reasons which weighed with the Courts below to find the accused guilty of the charged offences are one and the same and in view of Crl.R.P.1218/2005 filed by accused No.2 having been allowed on 03.04.2008, it has to be held that the infirmity in the prosecution case as pointed out in the said order passed by this Court, enures to the benefit of the

¶52

¶53

petitioner – accused No.1, otherwise, it will amount to miscarriage of justice.

¶54

In the result, the petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, impugned herein, is set aside. The petitioner / accused No.1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against her. The bail bond and surety bond furnished stand dissolved.

¶55

Fine amount deposited by petitioner / accused No.1, if any, be refunded to her.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

sac*

Thayamma @ Rudramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thayamma @ Rudramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E M Noel S/O T.V.A Noel Vs K Rukmangadhan

Sri Sanjay Reddy N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Hajira Vs State by Kumaraswamy Layout

Sri Badrinath Ladda Vs Smt D Vijaya W/O Muthuswamy

Mallikarjun Vs the State

Gopulalu Lamani S/O Late Sri Lalu Lamani Vs C Narayanaswamy S/O Late Sri Chennappa