Allowed

Mr Vasantha @ Vasu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021CRL.RP/670/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed this criminal revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentence for robbery. The court held that identification evidence was unproven due to contradictions regarding lighting and timing, and the recovery of stolen property lacked independent corroboration as required by law.

What did the court decide?

Orders of conviction and sentence set aside; Petitioner acquitted; Fine refunded if deposited; Records transmitted to trial court.

Mr Vasantha @ Vasu Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.670/2012

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MR.VASANTHA @ VASU S/O MR.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE HONNAVALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT WORKING AS SUPPLIER RENUKA BAR, TIPTUR TOWN …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TOWN POLICE, TIPTUR THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI ROHITH B J, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2011 AND THE CONSEQUENT SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TIPTUR IN C.C.NO.422/2010 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, TIPTUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.64/2011.

¶15

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition.

¶20

The petitioner (accused No.1) and accused No.2 were prosecuted in C.C.No.422/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Tiptur for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Tiptur Town police in Crime No.142/2009 of their Police Station.

¶21

The case of the prosecution in brief is as

¶22

follows:

¶23

(i) On 11.09.2009 at 9.00 p.m. when PW.2 was talking to her neighbours PWs.3 and 4 in front of her house in Shankarappa Layout, Tiptur Town, accused No.1 accosted her and snatched her mangalya chain. After such snatching, accused No.1 escaped on the motorcycle of

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶25

¶26

accused No.2. Both of them shared common intention to

¶27

rob the chain.

¶28

(ii) Regarding the incident, PW.1 husband of PW.2

¶29

filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.11 Police SubInspector of Tiptur Town Police Station registered the first information report as per Ex.P7 against unknown persons and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. The Police Inspector of Tiptur Town Police Station took up further investigation of the case from PW.11.

¶30

(iii) Accused No.1 was in the custody of Arasikere police in connection with some other cases. PW.10 arrested the petitioner on 28.01.2010 and interrogated him. During the course of interrogation, accused No.1 gave voluntary statement as per Ex.P6 leading to recovery of the stolen properties.

¶31

(iv) Accused No.1 led the police and mahazar witnesses to his house in K.R.Extension, Tiptur and produced MO.1 and the same was seized under the mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6. He conducted the further investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶33

¶34

The trial Court on taking cognizance registered the case in C.C.No.422/2010 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and tried them for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. On such trial, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months holding that the charge against the accused is proved by the evidence of the victim PW.2, eyewitnesses PWs.3 and 4 and recovery of MO.1.

¶35

Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.64/2011 and accused No.2 filed Crl.A.No.67/2011 before the Fast Track Court, Tiptur. The First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and order confirmed the trial Court’s order against the petitioner and reversed the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court against accused No.2. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court with regard to identification of the petitioner and stolen properties. But so

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶37

¶38

far as accused No.2, the First Appellate Court held that his

¶39

identity was not proved by the prosecution.

¶40

The case of the prosecution was based on the evidence of PW.1 the complainant who is the husband of PW.2, the evidence of PW.2 the victim cum eyewitness, PWs.3 and 4 other eyewitnesses, recovery of MO.1 under mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 the mahazar witnesses, PWs.7 and 9 the Police constables who were in the team of the Investigating Officer PW.10 during recovery of MO.1 and the evidence of PW.11.

¶41

Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned Counsel for

¶42

the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned orders of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

¶43

(i) The identity of the petitioner was not established;

¶44

(ii) The circumstance of recovery being doubtful and the same was not proved and;

¶45

(iii) The identity of the subject matter of robbery was not established;

¶46

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶47

¶48

Per contra, Sri B.J.Rohith, learned HCGP for

¶49

the respondent seeks to justify the impugned orders of conviction and sentence on the ground that there are concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court on appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence. He submits that such concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶50

Reg. Identity of the petitioner:

¶51

According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 concertedly committed robbery, accused No.1 walked at the scene of offence to rob the mangalya chain as walker, snatched the chain of PW.2. According to the prosecution soon after he snatching the chain, accused No.2 picked him up in motorcycle and both of them escaped.

¶52

As per the charge sheet, the incident took place on 11.09.2009 at 9.00 p.m. In the complaint as per Ex.P1 the time of offence is mentioned as 9.00 p.m. The petitioner was not known to PWs.2 to 4 the victim and the eyewitnesses. PW.2 in her deposition states that a person

¶53

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶54

¶55

suddenly accosted her and snatched her mangalya chain and escaped with another person in motorcycle. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is also the same effect.

¶56

PWs.2 to 4 all admitted that it was dark at the time of offence. PWs.2 to 4 claimed that there was street light and they saw the culprit in that street light. In Ex.P2 spot mahazar no such street lights are shown. PW.3 claimed that she saw accused No.1 from distance.

¶57

All the aforesaid witnesses claim that the police showed accused No.1 to them on 27.01.2010. Ex.P6 the voluntary statement indicates that it was recorded on 28.01.2010. The Investigating Officer does not state about the date of arrest of the petitioner. If the petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2010 then it is difficult to believe the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 that the police got the petitioner identified by them on 27.01.2010.

¶58

The trial Court without noticing that material

¶59

contradictions in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and the spot

¶60

mahazar regarding source of light jumped to the conclusion that the identification of the petitioner was

¶61

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶62

¶63

sufficient. The petitioner was stranger to PWs.2 to 4. The crime took place in a spur of moment. The overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances go to show that identification of the petitioner by PWs.2 to 4 was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the trial Court and the First Appellate Court fell in glaring error in accepting the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 regarding his identification.

¶64

Reg. recovery of MO.1 and identification of the same:

¶65

The other circumstance based on which the

¶66

trial Court and the First Appellate Court connected the petitioner to the crime is recovery of MO.1 under mahazar Ex.P3. PWs.5 and 6 independent witnesses to the alleged recovery under Ex.P3 did not support the said prosecution’s case regarding recovery.

¶67

PWs.7 and 9 were the police constables who were working under PW.10. They were alleged members of the team of PW.10 in recovering MO.1. Since they were sub-ordinate to PW.10, the trial Court should have sought independent corroboration for such recovery.

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶69

¶70

It is material to note that as per PWs.2 to 4

¶71

they had seen accused Nos.1 and 2 by chance and for a short span of time. The trial Court convicted accused No.2 relying on the identification of accused No.2 and based on the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. The First Appellate Court rejected their evidence regarding identification of accused No.2 and acquitted him.

¶72

Though according to prosecution accused Nos.1 and 2 acted concertedly, accused No.2 was acquitted by First Appellate Court and conviction of accused No.1 was confirmed. The First Appellate Court overlooked the material contradictions in the prosecution evidence even with regard to identity of the petitioner and the recovery circumstances. The accused cannot be convicted unless the charge brought against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand, the petitioner was also entitled to the benefit extended to accused No.2. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶73

The impugned orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by both the Courts below for

¶74

Crl.R.P.No.670/2012

¶75

¶76

the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is hereby

¶77

set aside.

¶78

The petitioner is acquitted of the charge brought

¶79

against him.

¶80

Fine amount deposited if any, by the petitioner shall

¶81

be refunded to him.

¶82

Transmit the records to the trial Court forthwith.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

KSR

Mr Vasantha @ Vasu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vasantha @ Vasu v. 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

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State, Represented by

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State Represented by

Sri Abdul Hameed Vs the State Represented by

Mr K Vijaya Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

T H Venkatesh Vs P v Gopal Setty

Mr Joel Komanda Bambale Vs the State by