Partly allowed

Raju Sayad Jamadar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100014/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401(1) Cr.P.C, the High Court of Karnataka addressed the conviction of the accused for theft under Sections 380 and 454 IPC. The Court held that mere recovery of stolen articles without corroboration or explanation from the accused was insufficient, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed; convictions and sentences for offences under Sections 454 and 380 IPC were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

Raju Sayad Jamadar Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100014/2015

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI RAJU SAYAD JAMADAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE/COOLIE R/AT KEMPAWAD ATHANI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT..

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. VAISHALI KALADAGI, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT DHARWAD BY ATHANI POLICE STATION.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶15

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD

¶16

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401(1) OF CR.P.C SEEKING THAT THE RECORDS OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC ATHANI IN C.C.NO.1150/2010 DATED 18.07.2013, AND LEARNED VIIADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, CHIKODI IN CRL.A.NO.154/2013 DATED 03.12.2014 BE CALLED FOR ASCRETAIN THE CORRECTNESS AND LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE FINDING AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BOTH THE COURTS.

¶18

¶19

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by Trial Court and Appellate Court for offence under Section 454, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶23

The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.2 and 4 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.8,000/- each for the offence under Section 454 of IPC and in default payment of fine, both shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

¶24

Further, the accused Nos.2 and 4 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.8,000/each for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and in default payment of fine, both shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

¶25

¶26

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶27

Originally, case was filed in respect of four accused persons. Out of which, charge was framed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. Subsequently, after framing of charge accused No.1 remained absent and the case was split-up against accused No.1. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded against accused Nos.2 and 4 and passed judgment and order stated supra.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the rankings of the parties will be considered henceforth according to their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶29

It is the case of the prosecution on 02.09.2010

¶30

at about 2.30 p.m., PW.1 had lodged a complaint before Athani Police Station stating that the theft was committed in his house on 29.08.2010, which is situated in front of S.S.M.S College Academy. As per the averments of the complaint, there were certain golden articles and silver articles and also cash of Rs.3,600/- were found missing. A case came to be registered in Crime No.311/2010 and took

¶31

¶32

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶33

up investigation. After conducting investigation charge sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons.

¶34

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses i.e. PW.1 to PW.10 and also got examined Exs.P1 to P22 and identified MO.1 to MO.19. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused stated supra.

¶35

Heard Ms.Vaishali Kaladagi, learned Amicus Curiae for petitioner and Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent.

¶36

Ms.Vaishali Kaladagi, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Though the alleged recovery said to have taken place in the house of respective accused Nos.2 and 4, the local persons have not been made as witnesses to the seizure mahazar. Therefore, there is a doubt regarding the

¶37

¶38

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶39

seizure mahazar said to have been recorded at the place where it was hidden.

¶40

Further, it is submitted that mere recovery of the articles even assuming as true, that would not be sufficient to convict the accused for the offences stated supra. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses, hence, the conviction is required to be set aside.

¶41

Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that the concurrent findings recorded for conviction by the subordinate courts are appropriate and sustainable for the reason that the articles mentioned in the complaint have been recovered at the instance of the accused. The mahazar witness have supported the case of the prosecution therefore, the concurrent findings has to be sustainable.

¶42

It is further submitted that, unless the accused explained how the stolen property were in their

¶43

¶44

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶45

possession, it is deemed that the accused has stolen the said property. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court appears to be correct and interference in the concurrent findings may not be appropriate.

¶46

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents, it appears that the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10. PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the witness to spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P2. Under the said mahazar MOs.1, 2, 3 and 4 have been recovered. PW.3 stated to have present while seizing the stolen articles at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. The said mahazar is marked as Ex.P5. Similarly, another seizure mahazar which is marked as Ex.P7 pertaining to recovery of article marked as MO.11 to MO.17 at the instance of accused No.4.

¶47

It is to be noted here that, as on the date of alleged incident at the place where the incident has taken

¶48

¶49

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶50

place no one was there in the house, the description of the accused has not been described in the complaint. However, the PW.10 has recovered the items stated in the complaint at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 4 and also named in the charge sheet is highly improbable and not appropriate. Arrest of accused Nos.2 and 4 in this case and recovered the items as stated in the complaint is highly imaginary and illusory which the prosecution has not explained properly.

¶51

To prove the case of the complaint, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that all those items stated in the complaint have been purchased by the complainant. Mere recovery of articles may not be sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Sections 454, 380 of IPC. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court mainly relied on recovery of articles at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 4. However, failed to consider such recovery whether it is voluntary or involuntary.

¶52

¶53

Crl.R.P. 100014/2015

¶54

In the light of the observations made above,

¶55

the concurrent findings made by the subordinate courts require to be set aside and accused are entitled for acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶58

ii) The Judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Athani in C.C.No.1150/2010 dated 18.07.2013, and its confirmation order passed by the learned VIIAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikodi in Crl.A.No.154/2013 dated 03.12.2014 are set aside.

¶59

iii) The accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of IPC.

¶60

iv) The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Bss

Raju Sayad Jamadar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Sayad Jamadar 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

Manjunath S/O Hanumanth Kolipuchha Vs Geethappa Hanumanth Bhajantri

Chourashi Mahila Multipurpose Souhard Vs the Secretary

Dyaneshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs the Secretary

State of Karnataka Vs Muralidhar Padmanabh Gayatonde

Kms Shareef S/O K Khader Vs Smt. Anuradha W/O Anantraj Shanabhag

Amaresh Vs State of Karnataka by