Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC for robbery. High Court held that prosecution evidence was shaky, inconsistent, and lacked corroboration, creating reasonable doubt. Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted.
Impugned order of conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K S MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2125/2017
BETWEEN:
SADIQ @ KULDA SADIQ S/O ALLABAKSHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NEAR ESHWARANA KALLU CHELUGUDDA CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501
NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AT CENTRAL PRISON, BELLARI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S J KRISHNOJI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION (C.P.I., CHITRADURGA RURAL CIRCLE) (REP. BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:SHANKAR H S, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.11.2013 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.110/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE
2 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed
against him, accused No.2 in S.C. No.110/2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has preferred this appeal.
3
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
reported to him by P.W.3 - Narasimharaju and P.W.6 - Chowdappa over phone, he went to the scene of offence and found his injured mother. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 6 shifted the injured to the Chitradurga Hospital where P.W.5 - Dr Salimanjappa treated her and issued the wound certificate - Ex.P-3.
of scene of offence as per Ex.P-13. It is alleged that P.W.12 had deputed PSI Balachandra Naik and others in Crime No.26//2012. P.W.9 allegedly apprehended accused No. 2 and produced him before P.W.12.
4 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
5
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
robbed her ear studs, nose stud and cash of Rs.200/- and caused her injury.
6 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
judgment against accused Nos.1 and 2 was composite and inseparable, since accused No.1 has not preferred any appeal, the judgment has attained finality in respect of accused No.1. He further submits that alleged contradictions and inconsistencies do not go to the root of the matter and they are not fatal.
(1) P.W.1 - victim
(2) P.W.2 - complainant who is the son of P.W.1.
(3) P.Ws.3 and 6 - res-gestae witnesses who learnt about the incident from P.W.1 -victim and then shifted her to the hospital.
7
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
(7) P.W.11 - Tahasildar who conducted the Test Identification Parade.
(8) Police witness - P.W.9 who had allegedly apprehended accused No.2, P.W.10 who received the complaint and registered FIR, P.W.5 - Investigating Officer.
8 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
issuing any medico legal information to P.W.10. P.W.10 states that he received wireless information about the incident, visited the hospital. He says that the victim was not in a condition to speak, therefore, he received the complaint from P.W.2 - son of the victim. But he has not taken any medical certificate from P.W.5 about the condition of P.W.1.
9 Crl.A.No.2125/2017
ring and nose stud in the police station. she says at that time her assailants were in the police station, she identified them in the police station. She does not speak of any Test Identification Parade.
not know to read and write Kannada and he does not know what is Ex.P-1 and what is written in Ex.P-1. In para 4 of his deposition, he states that by the time he reached the police station, police had prepared the complaint, asked him to subscribe his signature on the same and accordingly, he signed the same. He states that only after P.Ws.3 and 6 informing him about the incident, he came to know about the same. In
10
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
view of such evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the very genesis of the complaint or contents of the complaint become doubtful.
day, due to birth anniversary of late Nijalingappa, there was a programme near Nijalingappa Samadhi, therefore, there was lot of crowd and such incident could not have taken place there. P.W.1 in para 9 of her deposition admits that scene of offence is by the side of Nijalingappa Samadhi. She admits that there are two Dhabas and one Tea stall and it is a crowded place. She also admits that there will be lot of vehicular traffic on that place. In para 10 of her deposition, she admits that on every Sunday, there used to be a cattle market in that area and in para 11 of her deposition, she admits a suggestion that on that day, there was a big function on account of Birth Anniversary of Nijalingappa and lot of people gathered there.
to the place being crowded due to such function and improbability of occurrence of the incident on the ground that as per the witnesses, scene of offence is the land of Sri Krishnappa and not by the side of Nijalingappa Samadhi. But under Ex.P-2 - spot mahazar, it is mentioned that Krishnappa's
11
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
land situates behind Nijalingappa Samadhi and that was a shallow land. It is not that, that land had thick vegetation and others could not see anything.
12
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
know who showed the spot to the police and police told him that they have drawn the mahazar and at their instance, he signed on the mahazar.
13
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
somebody that P.W.1 was assaulted near Eshwara temple and therefore he went and saw the injured and he shifted her to the hospital in a vehicle. He says that he came to know through P.W.1 that miscreants have robbed her nose stud and cash of Rs.300/-. In his cross examination, he says that he frequents the police station, Court and Taluk offices and whenever such incidents take place, police contact him. Though he claims that he shifted the injured to the hospital, he says he does not know in which vehicle she was taken to the hospital, he does not know whether the vehicle was jeep, bus or any other vehicle. He says that he does not have phone or mobile. He says that except himself, P.W.1 and the driver, none else were present.
He also deposed that before they reached the hospital in Chitradurga, he did not inform the police and he has not even informed the Rural police though he came through Sibara village nor phoned to the police station.
14
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
spot mahazar and took his signature on the same, Ex.P-2 does not bear his signature.
15
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
16
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused were not shown to them after the incident.
17
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
P.W.12, P.W.12 says that seizure mahazar is Ex.P-2. Ex.P-2 is the spot mahazar and not the seizure mahazar. Therefore, the circumstance of recovery also fails.
18
Crl.A.No.2125/2017
The appellant is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 34 of IPC. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in any other Case.
Communicate the operative portion of this order to the trial Court and Jail authorities forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
*sp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution established the commission of robbery and identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution witnesses' evidence resulted in a failure to prove the charge.
Whether the impugned conviction and sentence should be set aside due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SADIQ @ KULDA SADIQ S/O ALLABAKSHI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
K S MUDAGAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
