Allowed

Ananth S P @ Medda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2022CRL.RP/322/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenged the conviction of the petitioner for theft and burglary. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the convictions by the lower courts due to fatal flaws in the prosecution's evidence regarding recovery and identification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the offences.

Ananth S P @ Medda Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.322 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Ananth S.P. @ Medda, S/o. Prakash @ Bikla Aged about 28 years, R/o. 649, 22nd Cross, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore - 570001.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

(By Smt. Archana Murthy P., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka through Mandya Rural Police Station, Mandya, Represented by S.P.P. High Court, Bangalore - 560001.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, High Court Govt. Pleader)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to allow this petition by setting aside the judgment and order of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 16-01-2021

¶16

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021

¶17

¶18

in Criminal Appeal No.56/2020 and also the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mandya dated 03-08-2020 in Criminal Case No.1768/2013, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present petitioner was accused in Criminal Case No.1768/2013, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mandya, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), who, by the judgment of conviction dated 03-08-2020 and order on sentence dated 05-08-2020 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the IPC”) and was sentenced accordingly.

¶22

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.56/2020, in the Court of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “the Sessions Judge’s Court”),

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 3

¶24

which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.1768/2013. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, the accused/petitioner herein has preferred the present revision petition.

¶25

The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the intervening night of 16^th and 17^th January 2013, the present accused along with three other persons, with a common intention of committing theft, broke open the back side door of CW-1's house situated at Hulikere village, within the limits of complainant Police and entered into the house and snatched CW-2's golden Maangalya chain weighing 15 grams. On her screaming, the accused ran away with half portion of the Maangalya chain with him. Her husband (PW-1) lodged a complaint with the Shivalli Police.

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021

¶27

¶28

However, the accused was caught by the Pandavapura Police, who conducted the investigation and claim to have recovered the subject property i.e. half portion of the golden Maangalya chain weighing 15 grams, at the instance of the accused and have filed charge sheet against the accused (present petitioner) for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the IPC.

¶29

The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all fourteen (14) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-14 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

¶30

The respondent - State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 5

¶32

The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

¶33

Though this matter was listed for Admission, with the consent from the learned counsels from both side, the same is taken up for its final disposal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.

¶35

Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and learned Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 6

¶38

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

¶39

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court that, the accused has committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

¶40

The petitioner has not denied or disputed about the alleged incident of theft on the date, time and place mentioned in the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her opening sentence in the argument submitted that she would not deny or dispute the alleged occurrence of theft of certain valuable articles from the house of the complainant. However, her only point of argument is about the alleged involvement of the accused in the alleged incident of theft.

¶41

PW-1 - Rajappa, who is the complainant and resident of the house where the alleged incident of theft had

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 7

¶43

taken place and PW-2 -Smt. Mallamma, the wife of the complainant in the case who is also alleged to be the victim in loosing a portion of the Maangalya chain worn by her, their daughter Smt. Baby, who was examined as PW-3 and the sonin-law of the complainant by name Gurumallappa, who was examined as PW-4, have all spoken about the alleged incident of theft said to have taken place in the house of PW-1 on the intervening night of 16^th and 17^th January 2013. However, their evidence regarding the alleged involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime is the main point, on which, after analysing the evidence placed before it, both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have concurrently held that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is disputing the alleged analysis of the evidence, which, according to the petitioner, is perverse and erroneous, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.

¶44

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 8

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) has stated that, the identity of the accused itself is seriously doubted. None of the witnesses have clearly and specifically identified the present petitioner as the accused who has committed the alleged offence. Though PW-2 and PW-3 themselves are shown to have identified the accused but it has been elicited in their cross-examination that it is only after tutoring by the Police by duly showing the accused in their Police Station, both these witnesses have proceeded to say that they have seen the accused and identified him in the Court.

¶46

A careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would go to show that, though PW-1 to PW-4 claiming themselves to be the residents of the same house on the night of the incident have uniformly stated about the incident of the alleged theft of valuable articles, including

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 9

¶48

Maangalya chain, but primarily, regarding the alleged theft of few other valuables, there is no uniformity among them.

¶49

According to PW-1 - Rajappa (complainant), it is only the golden Maangalya chain worn by his wife that was stolen by the thief, that too, not in its entirety, but in his attempt, the thief could get only the other half portion of the Maangalya chain worn by his wife.

¶50

On the other hand, PW-2 - Mallamma, in her statement of the alleged theft has included three golden finger rings of the children, three golden finger rings of her daughter and a cash of `70,000/- which was said to have been stolen by thief by breaking upon the Almirah in their old house adjacent to the house where the alleged theft of Maangalya chain was said to have taken place.

¶51

PW-3 - Smt. Baby - the daughter of PW-1 and PW-2 also

¶52

has stated about the theft of other valuable articles in their old house, but according to her, the valuables stolen from the

¶53

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021

¶54

¶55

said house was not six golden finger rings, but it was only four golden articles, a pair of ear studs, a silver article and cash of a sum of `60,000/-.

¶56

PW-4 - Gurumallappa - the son-in-law of PW-1 and PW-2 has also stated about theft of valuables from their old house which articles included four golden finger rings, three pairs of golden ear studs and cash of a sum of `20,000/-.

¶57

Thus, at the first instance, about the details of the alleged stolen articles, there is no uniformity among all the witnesses, in as much as each witness has given a different description and number of the stolen articles in their own manner.

¶58

Regarding the alleged seizure of the article at the instance of the accused is concerned, the material witnesses whom the prosecution relied upon and examined was mainly PW-6 - J. Kishanlal followed by PW-7 - Basanth Kumar and PW-8 - Sundaresha R.G.

¶59

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 11

¶60

PW-6 -J. Kishanlal, stated to be a pawn broker,has, in his

¶61

examination-in-chief stated that the accused, on the pretext of meeting out the medical expenditure towards his ailing mother, had, by selling a golden ear stud and jumki and if he remembers correctly, a golden necklace also weighing about 25 grams, had taken a sum of `45,000/- from him. He also stated that those articles were given back by him to the Police when the Police had brought the accused before him. However, throughout in his examination-in-chief, he has not whispered anything about the alleged Maangalya chain, which is the main article which the prosecution is contending as the one stolen by the accused in the instant case. As such, at the request of the prosecution, PW-6 was treated as hostile witness and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted the suggestions made to him as true that the accused had also produced cut portion of a golden Maangalya chain, the photograph of which the witness has identified at Ex.P-3. He

¶62

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 12

¶63

has also identified the accused as the one who had sold those articles to him.

¶64

Interestingly, after such an evidence supporting the case of the prosecution, the witness (PW-6) in his crossexamination has admitted all the denial suggestions made to him from the accused's side as true. He went even to the extent of admitting a suggestion as true that he had never seen the accused earlier to his trial in the Court and that it was for the first time he was seeing the accused in the Court. In this way, though the witness is shown to have supported the case of the prosecution, so far as the alleged seizure of the stolen articles as well as the identity of the accused are concerned, but in his cross-examination, he has given a go-by to his previous statements and by admitting all the denial suggestions made to him from the accused's side, has allowed the accused to prove that his (PW-6's) evidence was not trustworthy.

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 13

¶66

Thus, the evidence of PW-6 is not trustworthy to believe that the alleged articles, more particularly, golden Maangalya chain marked in the photograph at Ex.P-3 was recovered at the instance of the accused.

¶67

The other two panchas who were relied upon by the prosecution as the witnesses for the alleged seizure panchanama of the stolen articles at the instance of the accused were PW-7 - Basanth Kumar and PW-8 - Sundaresh R.G. Both these witnesses, in their examination-in-chief itself have stated that when they had been to complainant Police Station on some personal work few years back, the Police had obtained their signatures on the panchanama. They have specifically stated that they do not know for what purpose the Police had obtained their signatures on it and also stated that, no seizure of any article was done in their presence. Even after treating them hostile, the prosecution could not get any favourable statement from them in their cross-examination.

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021

¶69

¶70

As such, the three important and material witnesses upon whom the prosecution was relying upon to prove the alleged seizure at the instance of the accused could not stand to the rescue of the prosecution. When the independent material witnesses have deserted the case of the prosecution so far as the alleged recovery as well the identification of the accused, mere evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Police witnesses i.e. PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, and PW-14 on the point of alleged arrest of accused and his identity and also the alleged seizure made at the instance of the accused, would not inspire confidence in the Court to believe them.

¶71

However, both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, only by going through the selected portions of the depositions in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 about the identity of the accused and also identification of the alleged stolen article at Ex.P-3 by PW-2 and PW-6, have hastily

¶72

¶73

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021

¶74

jumped to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶75

Since in the said process, both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have failed to notice several of the lacunas and shortcomings in the case of the prosecution, more particularly, in the oral evidence led by all the material witnesses, the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court should have necessarily given the benefit of those doubts to the accused, in which an event, their judgments would have been otherwise than from convicting the present accused for the alleged offences. Since the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court, by not appreciating the materials placed before them in their proper perspective, have ended in erroneously holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences, the said finding of both the Courts warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶76

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶77

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 16

¶78

O R D E R

¶79

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands

¶80

allowed.

¶81

[ii] The impugned judgment of conviction dated 03-08-2020 and order on sentence dated 05-08-2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mandya, in Criminal Case No.1768/2013, holding the accused (petitioner herein) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was further confirmed by the judgment and order dated 16-01-2021, passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No.56/2020, are hereby set aside;

¶82

[iii] The revision petitioner (accused) – Sri. Ananth S.P. @ Medda, S/o. Prakash @ Bikla,

¶83

Crl.R.P.No.322/2021 17

¶84

Aged about 28 years, R/o. 649, 22nd Cross, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore, 570001, stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶85

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

¶86

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also the learned Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records immediately for doing needful in the matter.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

BMV*

Ananth S P @ Medda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananth S P @ Medda 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

M/S Sri Matha Amruthanandamayi Fertilizers and Chemicals Vs M/S Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited

Devaraj Vs State of Karantaka

Imthiyza @ Imran Vs Smt. Rukiyabi @ Jaiba Roshan

Sri M Krishna Reddy @ Krishna M Vs Smt. M E Suhasini

Sri B N Venkatesh Vs Sri Rahul R Moorthy

Sri P S Prabhakar Vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation