Dismissed

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100179/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the conviction and sentence of six accused persons for theft. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that stolen articles were recovered and identified by independent witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed; the conviction and sentence orders of the Trial Court and Sessions Court are confirmed.

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100179 OF 2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. Date: 2022.12.17 15:46:16 +0530

¶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

¶16

¶17

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶25

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 RANBENNUR IN CRL.A.NO.70/2008 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.628/2002 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The 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.628/2002 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) JMFC, Bydagi, and also its confirmation order dated 15.07.2013 in Crl.A.No.70/2008 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur).

¶31

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶32

On 08.06.2002 at about 2:00 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 6 in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft in the house of PW1, entered the house by sparing accused No.3 outside the house to watch the movements of the people, committed theft by breaking open the iron bar of the hind door of the house. It is alleged that the accused persons have stolen 40 gms of sliver Lingadakai and 250 gms. of silver statue of God of Veerabhadreshwara and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Upon the complaint of PW2, FIR is registered and the police conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶35

To prove the case of the prosecution the

¶36

prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and also identified MO.1 to MO.7.

¶37

The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the accused have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court after considering the document and also the evidence of the witnesses, confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

¶38

Heard Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶39

Sri. Shivasai M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside as it is contrary to the facts and evidence of the case.

¶40

¶41

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶42

It is further submitted that, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the police have falsely implicated the accused persons in this case. Even though, the alleged recovery and its identification appears to be doubtful, the Trial Court convicted the accused based on the identification of the articles, which is unsustainable and against to the principle of law.

¶43

8 . Per contra , Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, the learned High Court Government Pleader, while justifying the judgment of conviction and also its confirmation order of the Appellate Court submits that, the accused are habitual offenders, there are several cases pending against them. There are three cases filed against the accused Nos.1 to 6 which indicate, how these accused persons are working together to commit theft. It is further submitted that, the act of the accused is detrimental to the Society at large and injustice to the particular. If any leniency is shown, it would cause serious threat to the Society. Therefore, they deserve to be convicted.

¶44

It is further submitted that, the alleged recovery

¶45

has been proved through the independent witnesses and the articles MO1 and MO2 have been identified by the complainant-

¶46

¶47

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶48

PW2. Therefore, the Trial Court and Appellate Court have properly convicted the accused. Having submitted thus, the learned counsel for the respondent-State prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties

¶50

and perused the documents available on record, the points which arise for my consideration are;

¶51

1. Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered the documents and the evidence properly without committing any error or perversity?

¶52

Whether the petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ?

¶53

To answer the above points, it is necessary to analyze the evidence of the case and also important witnesses and their evidence. In this case, PW.2 is the complainant, PW.3 is the panch witness to seizure panchanama and the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.4. PW5 is the receiver of stolen goods, he has stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 have sold MO.1 and 2 to him, supported the case. PW11 is the P.S.I. has

¶54

¶55

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶56

conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. PW12 arrested accused Nos.1 to 6 and produced them before the Byadagi police.

¶57

Admittedly, PW2 has lodged a complaint alleging that theft has been committed in his house, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. It is alleged in the said complaint that two silver items have been stolen from his house. The spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P4 has been explained satisfactorily by the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW11. The seizure panchanama –Ex.P1 has been proved through the evidence of PW5. PW5 who signed Ex.P1 stated that one female and two male members had come to her house and sold MO1 and MO2 for Rs.1,000/-. After some days, the police have visited her house along with these accused and seized MO1 and MO2 in her presence at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 6. She has supported the case.

¶58

The said seized items were identified by PW2 and PW7 who are independent witnesses. PW7 further stated that he has witnessed the seizure of MO3 and MOs.4 to 7. Further he has identified MO1 and MO2. PW4 is the younger brother of

¶59

¶60

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶61

PW2. He had endorsed the alleged theft and also identified MO1 and MO2 and MO3 to 7, supported the case.

¶62

The evidence of all the witnesses namely, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 are consistent with regard to the theft committed in the house of PW2. The stolen articles have been seized at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 6 in the presence of PW5 and the said articles have been identified by PW2, PW4 and PW7. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence and the accused have not offered any explanation regarding their contention that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate court with regard to conviction is sustainable and there are no reasons made out by the petitioners to interfere with the said findings of conviction. Hence, I declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

CRL.RP No. 100179 of 2014

¶66

ORDER

¶67

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

¶68

ii) The order in C.C. No.628/2002 dated 07.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) and JMFC, Byadgi and it’s confirmation order passed in Criminal Appeal No.70/2008 dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge., Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) are hereby confirmed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

PJ,NAA List No.: 1

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagappa Yallapa 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

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 Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti Vs the State of Karnataka