State filed criminal appeal challenging acquittal of accused in IPC 392 robbery case. High Court upheld acquittal due to unexplained delay in FIR and failure to prove recovery of stolen chain without examination of required witnesses.
Criminal Appeal filed by the State dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by N UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE K.R. POLICE STATION MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE - 571 602.
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
…APPELLANT
AND:
RAVI @ HEBBALI S/O. SHIVANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT MANDAKALLI VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT MYSORE - 570 008.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO (A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.11.2014, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.180/2014 BY REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 8.8.14 PASSED BY THE COURT JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, (III COURT), MYSORE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.132/2010; INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. After conducting investigation, the jurisdictional police have submitted the charge sheet.
prosecution examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked these documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and also identified Material Object M.O.1 - Mangalya Chain. The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, opined that, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for the said offence.
Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
Government Pleader for the appellant/State and Sri. M. Sharas Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. In spite of proving the said case, the Appellate Court ignoring the evidence of all the witnesses and acquitted the accused, which is erroneous and illegal and the same may be setaside. Making such submission, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
acquittal appears to be appropriate and proper. Hence, interference may not be warranted in this case. Having submitted thus, the learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
he along with CPC–744 and CPC-157 who were deputed to trace out the accused. They went along with the informer, when they reached K.R.H. Road near Laskar Mohalla, the informer showed the accused and they have apprehended him. After enquiry, it is stated that, the accused disclosed his name. A confessional statement has been recorded by the police. In the said statement, the accused has stated that, if the police accompanied him, he will show the shop where he pledged the golden mangalya chain which he had robbed from PW.1.
(i) Whether the delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the case of the prosecution?
(ii) Whether the recovery of gold mangalya chain at the instance of the accused held sufficient to record the conviction?
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
complaint came to be lodged on 06.02.2010. As per the requisition which is marked as Ex.P4, the accused was arrested on 08.02.2010 and recovery was effected on the same day in the shop of CW.6 – Satish in the presence of CW.7 - Parashivamurthy and CW.8 – Ejas. Strangely, the prosecution not examined all the three witnesses. Therefore, the recovery at the instance of the accused not proved by the prosecution.
“12. It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju that the house of Muthuswami is at a distance of three furlongs from the village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi is also at a distance of three furlongs from the house of Muthuswami. Assuming that Muthuswami P. Witness was not found at his house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12, 1970, by Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as to why no report was lodged by Valanjiaraju at the police station. It is, in our opinion, most difficult to believe that even though the accused had been seen at 2 p.m. committing the murder of Madhandi
1 (1972) 3 SCC 393
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
deceased and a large number of villagers had been told about it soon thereafter, no report about the occurrence could be lodged till the following day. The police station was less than two miles from the village of Valanjiaraju and Kopia and their failure to make a report to the police till the following day would tend to show that none of them had witnessed the occurrence. It seems likely, as has been stated on behalf of the accused, that the villagers came to know of the death of Madhandi deceased on the evening of March 12, 1970. They did not then know about the actual assailant of the deceased, and on the following day, their suspicion fell on the accused and accordingly they involved him in this case. First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted
story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, Kopia, daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, according to the prosecution case, was present when the accused made murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, step-son of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene of occurrence on being told by Kopia. Neither of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circumstance, in our opinion, would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it.”
On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it makes it clear that, delay in setting the law into motion by lodging the complaint is normally viewed by the Courts in suspicion because there is a possibility of concoction of evidence against the accused.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
complaint came to be lodged on 06.02.2010 which creates doubt about the commission of the offence.
NC: 2023:KHC:31708 CRL.A No. 118 of 2015
the panch witness in the charge sheet, not examined in the trial. Therefore, there is no infirmity in recording the
acquittal passed by the Trial Court and there is no occasion to this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I decline to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in acquitting the accused / respondent.
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal filed by the State stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SNC,UN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution case?
Whether the recovery of the gold mangalya chain without examination of witnesses sustains the conviction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶13
THULIA KALI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1972) 3 SCC 393 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka
Ravi @ Hebbali
S Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
