Dismissed

Selvamani S/O Ramalingam, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2022CRL.RP/466/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for section 392 read with 34 IPC (robbery/snatching). The Court found prosecution evidence sufficient, the sentence proportionate, and the petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; petitioners directed to voluntarily surrender and serve sentence.

Selvamani S/O Ramalingam, Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.466 OF 2011

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Selvamani, S/o Ramalingam, Aged about 20 years, R/at No.87, M.T.V.Road, Rajagopal Garden, Near PSR Tyre Factory, Kalasipalya, Bengalore City.

¶8

Kumaresh, S/o Rajendran, Aged about 19 years, R/at No.76, Muniyappa's House, Behind Annamma Temple, Parvathipura, Bangalore. .. Petitioners

¶9

( By Sri Prabhugoud Tumbigi, Advocate )

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka By Shankapuram Police Station, Rep.by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore-560 001. .. Respondent

¶12

( By Sri Rahul Rai K., HCGP)

¶13

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.13531/2009, on the file of the learned I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru and be pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence, dated 19.11.2010 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, FTC-XVI, at Bengaluru, vide order dated 24.2.2011, and further be pleased to pass such other suitable order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present petitioners were tried as accused by the Court of learned I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the trial Court') in C.C.No .13531/2009, for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as theIPC') and were convicted by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.11.2010 and were sentenced accordingly.

¶19

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.883/2010, before the learned

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶22

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court XVI, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge’s Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated 24.02.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

¶23

The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that on 06.03.2009, at about 4.30 p.m., when the complainant (PW-1) Kum.Vindhya was walking on PMK road, within the limits of complainant-Police Station, the present petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2), snatched a golden chain worn by her which was weighing 14 grams, worth `15,000/-. Among the two accused, accused No.2 was caught on the spot by a Police Constable and the public who had gathered there. Based on the information revealed by accused No.2, accused No.1 was also apprehended by the police and golden chain which was in his possession was recovered. The accused were identified by the complainant and thus, the accused have

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶25

¶26

committed the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

The accused appeared in the trial Court and contested the matter through their counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all six witnesses from PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-8 and produced one material object at MO-1. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011 5

¶31

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

¶32

consent from both parties, the matter was taken up for arguments on main on merits.

¶33

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the revision petitioners (accused) failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 02.06.2022, appointed learned counsel - Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, as Amicus Curiae for the petitioners/accused to represent them in this case.

¶34

Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/revision petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State who are physically present in the Court.

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶37

¶38

After hearing the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned High Court Government Pleader, 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 as the Sessions Judge’s Court that the accused committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

¶40

Learned Amicus Curiae in his argument

¶41

submitted that though he would not deny or dispute about the alleged incident of chain snatching, but, seriously disputes the alleged involvement of the petitioners (accused) in the said incident. He contends that in the absence of complainant giving any description about the accused in her complaint, there was no basis for the Investigating Officer to apprehend accused No.1. He further submitted that the alleged recovery of the stolen chain from the possession of accused No.1 is also doubtful.

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶43

¶44

With this, he submits that the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

¶45

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent in his argument submits that since all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the impugned judgments does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶46

The accused have not denied the alleged incident, still, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 would go to show that the alleged incident of chain snatching has occurred on the date, time and place as mentioned in the complaint. Though PW-2, is a hearsay witness and claims to have heard about the incident from his daughter PW-1, but, PW-1/CW-1 is the complainant herself. She has narrated the incident stating that on 06.03.2009, while she was going on PMK road, at Bengaluru, at 4.30 p.m., two persons came from her behind and snatched a golden chain which she was wearing. Since she raised an alarm

¶47

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶48

¶49

by screaming, the people gathered there and some among them, including herself, chased the accused, however, they could catch accused No.2 with the help of a Police Constable, who incidentally was also there in the spot.

¶50

The said evidence of PW-1 about the occurrence of alleged incident of chain snatching has not been denied in her cross-examination. The said witness has identified the lost golden chain at MO-1 stating that the same was the chain that was lost in the incident. The said evidence of the witness also has not been denied or disputed in her cross-examination.

¶51

The evidence of PW-7, a Police Constable, also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that after seeing the complainant and another person chasing accused No.2, he stopped accused No.2 from running and caught hold of him and came to know through the complainant and other people there that the golden chain of PW-1 was robbed by two persons, however, one among

¶52

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶53

¶54

them was running and being chased by the complainant and another person.

¶55

The said undenied evidence so far as the incident is concerned corroborates the evidence of PW-1 with respect to the alleged incident and establishes that the alleged incident of robbery of a golden chain from the possession of PW-1 on the date, time and place alleged in the charge sheet has stood established.

¶56

Regarding identity of both the accused is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners has seriously disputed. According to him, the complaint does not reveal the details of the accused, more particularly, the identity of accused No.2.

¶57

No doubt, the complainant in her complaint has not given the name and address of the accused who were alleged to have committed the alleged crime, however, according to the prosecution, accused No.2 was caught red-handed while running from the spot immediately after

¶58

¶59

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶60

the incident. In the cross-examination of PW-1 herself, a suggestion was made from the accused side that she has narrated the description of the accused in the complaint. Thus, by making the said suggestion by none else than the accused to the complainant that the necessary descriptions are given in the complaint, now it cannot be contended that no such descriptions are there.

¶61

Assuming that no detailed description about the

¶62

accused are given in the complaint, still, it cannot be ignored of the alleged fact that accused No.2 was said to have been apprehended on the spot by the people who had gathered there, including PW-7 - a Police Constable. No doubt, as contended by learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners, no independent witness in that regard has been examined as a witness by the prosecution, however, the evidence of PW-7, though he is a Police Constable, cannot be suspected, who in his evidence has explained the details of the incident to the satisfaction of the Court. He has mentioned that being a Police Constable on duty

¶63

¶64

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶65

and more particularly on beat, on the very same street at the time of incident on the said date, claims to have seen accused No.2 being chased by the complainant and another person along with raising an alarm to catch hold of him. Being alerted by such an alarm raised by them, he caught accused No.2 on the spot and who was immediately identified by the complainant on the spot as the one who involved in snatching of golden chain from her possession. Later, he was brought to the Police Station and produced before the Police Sub-Inspector i.e., PW-5, who further enquired him and recorded his voluntary statement.

¶66

The said evidence of PW-7 could not be shaken in his cross-examination.

¶67

It is based upon the alleged voluntary statement said to have been given by accused No.2 as per Ex.P-6, the Investigating Officer proceeded to trace accused No.1 and also said to have recovered the golden chain from the possession of accused No.1. Without saying much about

¶68

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶69

¶70

the further process of the enquiry, it is said that based upon the further revelation said to have been made by accused No.2, the investigating agency, including PW-4 and PW-5 could able to trace accused No.1 in his sister's house and was apprehended. As such, even in the absence of detailed description of accused also, the investigating agency, after apprehending accused No.2 on the spot through PW-7, could able to collect the details of participation of accused No.1 and apprehended him.

¶71

Interestingly, the presence of accused No.2 along with accused No.1 at the time of commission of alleged crime which was narrated by PW-1 in cross-examination has not been specifically denied in her cross-examination. Except suggesting to PW-1 in her cross-examination that accused No.2 did not actually snatch the chain from her neck, nothing more was put to the witness even in the form of a suggestion about the absence of accused No.2 along with accused No.1 at the spot of the alleged offence. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 to

¶72

¶73

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶74

the effect that it was both accused Nos.1 and 2 who were following her and it was those two accused who snatched the chain worn by her, though physically accused No.2 did not snatch the chain from her neck, would establish that accused No.2 had a common intention and had shared the same with accused No.1 in committing robbery of the chain worn by PW-1.

¶75

PW-1 in her evidence has further stated that she has seen the accused while they were coming behind her back and even after they snatched her chain also, she has seen them. As observed above, one among them i.e., accused No.2, was caught near the spot by chasing him. Regarding identification of the accused, PW-1 has given her further statement to the Investigating Officer, which is also not denied in her cross-examination, rather, the same corroborates the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, the Investigating Officers, who have spoken about apprehending accused No.1 and recording the further statement of PW-1.

¶76

¶77

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶78

In addition to that, PW-1 in the Court has

¶79

identified the accused, which was also not been denied or disputed specifically by the other side. Thus, the evidence of PW-1, coupled with the evidence of PW-7, which corroborates the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, would go to show that, on the alleged date, time and place, an incident of chain snatching has occurred, which had the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in it.

¶80

According to PW-1, after the incident, within few days, she was summoned to the Police Station, where the chain that was snatched from her possession was got identified. The said statement of the witness, which has remained undenied, corroborates the evidence of the Investigating Officer in the case, which in turn, corroborates the evidence of PW-5 that after PW-4 - the Head Constable apprehending accused No.1 from his sister's house and producing before him, he, as a Investigating Officer, subjected the accused to physical

¶81

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶82

¶83

search and noticed the presence of golden chain in his pocket.

¶84

Though learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners raised his doubt regarding keeping-up of the said chain for nearly three days by the accused in his possession only, to suspect the same, nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses who have spoken about the alleged recovery of the chain from the possession of accused No.1. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-4 reveals that, in the process of tracing accused No.1, he has visited on several occasions, the house of accused No.1 and heard from the inmates of the house that since three days i.e., from the date of the incident, the accused No.1 had

¶85

not returned to his home and by collecting the details from them, the said Head Constable proceeded to the house of sister of accused No.1, where he noticed the presence of accused No.1 and brought him to the Police Station and produced him before his superior.

¶86

¶87

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶88

Thus, in such a case, when the accused after the incident, noticing that the people were gathered there, including the complainant and were chasing his co-accused i.e., accused No.2, did not go to his house and rather, took shelter in his sister's house and as such, there is all the probability of he retaining the snatched golden chain with him for a period of three days. Therefore, the doubt raised by the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners in that regard also is not enough to suspect the case of the prosecution.

¶89

Thus, since the prosecution by examining necessary and material witnesses, including the complainant, PW-7 and PW-4, could able to place the sufficient evidence before the Court regarding the alleged occurrence of the offence and involvement of both the accused therein, both the trial Court, as well as Sessions Judge's Court have rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences.

¶90

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

¶91

¶92

It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt of the accused. It must not be either exorbitant or for namesake.

¶93

In the instant case, the present

¶94

petitioners/accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of `500/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge’s Court being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused, I do not find any reason to interfere in it.

¶95

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

Crl.R.P.No.466/2011

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as

¶100

devoid of merits .

¶101

Petitioners/accused to voluntarily surrender before the trial Court within 45 days from today and to serve the sentence imposed upon them.

¶102

The Court, while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner - Sri.Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than `4,000/- payable to him by the Registry.

¶103

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records forthwith to enable them to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

bk/

Selvamani S/O Ramalingam, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvamani S/O Ramalingam, 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

Sri Boralingegowda B K Vs Sri Lokesh G R

Smt G S Sumithra Vs Sri H Narayana Rao

Kullegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M Soubhagyalakshmi Vs Sri S S Abdul Salam

Keshavamurthy Ashok Vs Sri. Sushil Kumar Jain

S Vijaykumar Vs the State of Karnataka