Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Suri @ Suresh @ Sudheer

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2013CRL.RP/307/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition. The court upheld the judgment of acquittal by the trial court and the confirmation by the Sessions Judge. It found no justifiable ground to interfere given the evidence on record and procedural lapses noted by lower courts.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed without reference to the respondents.

State of Karnataka Vs Suri @ Suresh @ Sudheer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF JULY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.307/2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YAGATI POLICE. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI G.M.SREENIVASA REDDY, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

SURI @SURESH @ SUDHEER, S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED 25 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O EDAVANAHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK-573103

¶12

SHANKARMURTHY, S/O SHEKARAIAH, AGED: 25 YEARS, TRACTOR DRIVER, R/O EDAVANAHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK-573103 …RESPONDENTS

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 3.1.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN CRL.CASE NO.389/10, ACQUITING THE RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 IPC AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED: 11.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST., AND S.J., CHICKMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO.67/11 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED:3.1.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN CRL.CASE NO.389/10.

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.2011 in C.C.No.389/2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur and confirmed by the judgment dated 11.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.67/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge at Chikamagalur.

¶18

The petitioner-police filed the charge sheet against the respondents-accused in C.C.No.389/2010 alleging that accused committed the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. After framing charges the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to 12 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and M.Os 1 to 17. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments framed the following point for its consideration:

¶19

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 26-

¶20

¶21

02-2010 at 11.30 p.m. near Yallambalase village in Yalagondanahalli gate, the accused persons waylaid the complainant while he was going in Kinetic Honda, then by threaten him with knife and committed the Robbery of finger rings, mobile phones and watch worth of Rs.33,000/and cash of Rs.800/- and thereby accused have committed the offence punishable U/s. 392 of IPC?

¶22

On appreciation of the entire materials on

¶23

record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove and establish the charge levelled against the respondents. Consequently, under the impugned judgment the Trial Court acquitted the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in Crl.A No.67/2011 on the file of the Lower Appellate Court.

¶24

¶25

On re-appreciation of the entire material on record the Lower Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence this Revision Petition.

¶26

Pw-1 is the eye-witness to the incident. Pw-

¶27

1 in his evidence deposed that he is not acquainted with the respondents-accused. The incident had taken place in the night and in the spot there was no light. Further it is stated that the respondents covered their face with monkey cap. In these circumstances the prosecution ought to have conducted identification parade. But in the instant case no such identification parade was conducted. This is one of the important aspect that both the Courts below had taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence on record. PW-7 and PW-11 are the punch witnesses and in their evidence these two witnesses have not whispered anything about the confessional statement made by the respondentsaccused. But the prosecution relied on the

¶28

¶29

confessional statements said to have been made in front of PW-7 and PW-11. This is yet another circumstance both the Courts below had taken into consideration to dis-believe the version of the prosecution. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below are supported by the evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed without reference to the respondents.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

NT/-

State of Karnataka v. Suri @ Suresh @ Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Suri @ Suresh @ Sudheer

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

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekar M. @ Somu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Keshava K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mujahid Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Nasir Vs Noohid @ Noohid Pasha