Dismissed

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100085/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, disposed of a Criminal Revision Petition filed by six accused to set aside their conviction and sentence for theft. The court held that possession of stolen gold articles, along with supporting recovery evidence, justified adverse inferences and confirmed the lower courts' verdicts.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the conviction and sentence date 07.10.2008 and 15.07.2013 were confirmed.

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100085/2014

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

NAGAPPA YALLAPPA GOTANAVAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and COOLI R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ: and DIST: HAVERI

¶11

GURUSWAMI KENCHAPPA DURGANNANAVAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and COOLIE R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ and DIST: HAVERI

¶12

YALLAWWA W/O. DURGAPPA PELANAVAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ and DIST: HAVERI

¶13

BASAVANTAPPA HANUMANTAPPA KANAKAPUR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ and DIST: HAVERI

¶14

HANUMANTAPPA DURAGAPPA KERUDI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ and DIST: HAVERI

¶15

BASAPPA HANUMANTAPPA HEDACHI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KURABAGONDA, TQ and DIST: HAVERI

¶16

.....PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI SHIVASAI M PATIL, ADV.)

¶18

AND

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY SPP, DHARWAD BENCH HIGH COURT, DHARWAD SUB INSPECTOR BYADGI POLICE STATION

¶20

…..RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶22

¶23

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE SENTENCE ORDER DATED 15.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, SITTING AT RANEBENNUR IN CRL.A.NO.69/2008 PARTLY ALLOWING AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.10.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BYADAGI IN C.C.NO.627/2002 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2008 in C.C.No.627/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Byadagi (for short, ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation order dated 15.07.2013 in Crl.A.No.69/2008 on the file of II-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur (for short, ‘Appellate Court’) seeking to set aside the concurrent finding of conviction.

¶28

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

PW-1 is the complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 24.02.2002, when he was sleeping along with relatives outside the house, accused Nos.1 to 6 have entered the house from hind door and committed a theft

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶32

of MO1 to MO6. The complainant has lodged a complaint before the police regarding theft of articles. The police have registered the case in Crime No.56/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶33

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P-27 and identified the material objects as MO1 to MO6.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts are contrary to the law and facts. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶35

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the allegations made in the complaint are false. The police have falsely implicated these petitioners. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. However, mere recovery of the articles would not be sufficient to convict the accused Nos.1 to 6. The alleged recovery of gold articles is doubtful and it is planted to implicate these accused.

¶36

¶37

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶38

It is further submitted that, there is no whisper regarding involvement of these accused persons. Except three cases, no other cases are pending against these accused persons. They are not habitual offenders. Therefore, implicating these petitioners in this case is erroneous and not appropriate. They are all residents of respective village and they are having deep root in the society. Therefore, considering the length of residence in their village the order of conviction and its confirmation may be set aside by this Court.

¶39

Per contra , learned HCGP while justifying the concurrent findings of the conviction passed by both the Courts submits that, the Trial Court and Appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused persons as they are habitual offenders and two more cases are pending against these accused persons. Recovery was made at the instance of the accused persons in the presence of panch witnesses and the panch witnesses have identified the accused and supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the judgment of conviction is sustainable under law.

¶40

¶41

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶42

It is further submitted by the learned HCGP that the evidence of panch witnesses and recovery of articles are sufficient to invoke the provision under Section 380 of IPC, if the accused persons have not explained the possession of the said articles satisfactorily, the adverse inference could be drawn against the accused regarding possession of articles and it is presumed that, those articles have been stolen goods. Hence, the findings of conviction is appropriate and it requires no interference.

¶43

After having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the records, the points which arise for my consideration are:

¶44

1) Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are sustainable?

¶45

2) Whether the revision petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings?

¶46

To answer the above points, it is necessary to refer the evidence of relevant witnesses and also the relevant documents.

¶47

¶48

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶49

PW-1 has lodged the complaint stating that

¶50

some unknown persons broke open the hind door during night hours and stolen some articles which were kept in the house. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and conducted the investigation. During the investigation, they found that the accused Nos.1 to 6 have committed the said offences and arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 and recorded their voluntary statements. On voluntary statements made by them, led the police to arrest accused Nos.4 to 6.

¶51

Further, on voluntary statements of the accused persons, on 12.11.2002, the police have visited shop of PW3 and recovered gold articles which were alleged to have sold for a sum of Rs.35,000/-. PW3 not only identified the accused but also supported the case as recovery witness. The said seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P5. Nothing is there to disbelieve the said recovery.

¶52

It is noticed that PW1 is the complainant and PW4 is the mother of PW1. PW1 supported the case with regard to the theft that had taken place in his house. PW4

¶53

¶54

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶55

has identified the gold articles. However, failed to identify the accused persons. PW6 also identified gold articles but not identified the accused persons. PW7 younger brother of PW1 stated about the theft that had taken place in his house, identified the gold articles but not identified the accused.

¶56

On careful perusal of the evidence of PW2, who is the witness to the spot panchanama and PW3 is the witness to the seizure mahazar which is marked as Ex.P5 clearly established that the accused persons were in possession of the gold articles belonging to PW1. Therefore, the said possession of gold articles itself sufficient to draw adverse inference regarding their involvement in commission of theft of gold articles unless contrary is proved. In this case no explanation is offered by the accused regarding the possession of MO1 to MO6 and its sale to PW3. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the Appellate Court endorsed it firmly after thorough verification of the evidence and

¶57

¶58

CRL.RP No.100085/2014

¶59

documents. Therefore, it is appropriate not to interfere

¶60

with the said concurrent findings of conviction.

¶61

In light of the observation made in the above the point No.1 is answered in the ‘affirmative’ and point No.2 in the ‘negative’. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

¶64

ii) The order in C.C. No.627/2002 dated 07.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Byadagi and it’s confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.69/2008 dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, are hereby confirmed.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

NAA

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar 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

Abdulwahab S/O Piru Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj Gouda S/O Doddamallan Gouda Vs State of Karnataka

Bandopant B Badavanache Vs Basavana Mahadev Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti Vs the State of Karnataka