Convictions for house-breaking and theft were challenged on the proof of recovery of stolen property. The Court dismissed all five revision petitions, upheld the recovery findings, and confirmed the appellate judgments, including the modified sentences and their concurrent operation.
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.
- 1 - CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100189 OF 2014 C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100190 OF 2014 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100191 OF 2014 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100192 OF 2014 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100193 OF 2014
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100189 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by J MAMATHA J MAMATHA Date: 2023.05.28 20:02:39 - 0700
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHIMASHANKAR NAGAR, NAI ZINDAGI SOLAPUR, NOW AT PRESENT LAXMI NARSINGH SINGANKERI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYAGIRI PS, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.31/2013, DATED 18.08.2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY III-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.27/2012 DATED 19.01.2013.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100190 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BHIMASHANKAR NAGAR, NAI ZINDAGI SOLAPUR, NOW AT PRESENT LAXMI NARSINGH SINGANKERI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYAGIRI PS, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.32/2013, DATED 18.08.2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY III-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.60/2012 DATED 19.01.2013.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100191 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHIMASHANKAR NAGAR, NAI ZINDAGI SOLAPUR, NOW AT PRESENT LAXMI NARSINGH, SINGANKERI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYAGIRI PS, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33/2013, DATED 18.08.2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY III-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.61/2012 DATED 19.01.2013.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100192 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHIMASHANKAR NAGAR, NAI ZINDAGI SOLAPUR, NOW AT PRESENT LAXMI NARSINGH SINGANKERI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYAGIRI PS, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34/2013, DATED 18.08.2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY III-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.62/2012 DATED 19.01.2013.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100193 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BHIMASHANKAR NAGAR, NAI ZINDAGI SOLAPUR, NOW AT PRESENT LAXMI NARSINGH, SINGANKERI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYAGIRI PS, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35/2013, DATED 18.08.2014 IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSES BY III-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.63/2012 DATED 19.01.2013.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 20.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Revision petitioner-accused feeling aggrieved by
judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Dharwad as shown in the chart below preferred
these revision petitions.
| Sl. No. |
Revision Petition Numbers |
Appeal before the First Appellate Court |
Criminal case before the Trial Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crl.R.P.100189/2014 | Crl.A.No.31/2013 | CC.No.27/2012 | |
| 1 | Judgment dated 18.8.2014 | Judgment dated 19.1.2013 | |
| 2 | Crl.R.P.100190/2014 | Crl.A.No.32/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.60/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
| 3 | Crl.R.P.100191/2014 | Crl.A.No.33/2013 | CC.No.61/2012 |
| Judgment dated 18.8.2014 | Judgment dated 19.1.2013 | ||
| 4 | Crl.R.P.100192/2014 | Crl.A.No.34/2013 | CC.No.62/2012 |
| Judgment dated 18.8.2014 | Judgment dated 19.1.2013 | ||
| 5 | Crl.R.P. 100193/2014 | Crl.A.No.35/2013 | CC.No.63/2012 |
| Judgment dated 18.8.2014 | Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
black colour Bajaj Pulsar vehicle and looking around in a suspicious manner. On seeing police, tried to escape from the place. However, the police staff apprehended him. The apprehended person, disclosed his name as Sri.S.Y.Shivpure. On enquiry with regard to contents of plastic bag in his possession, he did not give any satisfactory answer. Therefore, on securing the panch witnesses, article Nos.1 to 10 shown in the complaint with Bajaj Pulsar Vehicle bearing No. KA-25-S/8769 came to be seized under panchanama. Accused was brought to police station along with seized articles and filed complaint leading to registration of case in crime No.183/2011 of Keshwapur police station, Hubballi.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
| Sl.No. | Complainant | Crime No. | Police station |
Criminal case.No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Parushuram Bheemappa Lamani |
131/2011 | Vidyagiri | 27/2012 |
| 2 | Srirang Vamanrao Hulyalkar |
164/2011 | Vidyagiri | 60/2012 |
| 3 | Udaya Nageshwarao Nersekar |
166/2011 | Vidyagiri | 61/2012 |
| 4 | B.M.Marulradhaya | 177/2011 | Vidyagiri | 62/2012 |
| 5 | Srivatsa Parimalagouda Aparanji |
192/2011 | Vidyagiri | 63/2012 |
The accused was secured before Trial Court through process of law. The Trial Court on being prima facie satisfied of the material placed on record, framed charges against accused in all the cases for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Accused in all the cases pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has relied on oral and documentary evidence in respective cases and material objects identified by the complainant in all cases respectively.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
and claimed false case is filed. The accused examined his sister
as DW.1 and got marked two documents as Ex.D.1 and 2.
view of infirmities found during the course of their cross examination. The reasons assigned by both courts below in holding that the prosecution has proved the recovery of stolen articles from the possession and at the instance of accused cannot be legally sustained. There was enough material evidence in the form of DW.1 and documents at EXs.D.1 and 2 to show that accused was arrested along with his family members much prior to 18.11.2011 and both courts below have ignored the complaint filed by sister of accused dated 14.11.2011 about illegal detention of accused and his family members. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both courts below are not based on any sound reasoning and cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing all revision petitions and to set aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, to acquit accused in all the cases from the charges leveled against him.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
in this case to prove the charges leveled against accused relied on evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 11, so also got identified M.O.1. Accused lead defence evidence by examining his sister as DW.1 and relied on documents EXs.D.1 and 2.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
On suspecting that somebody has committed theft of the said articles by breaking open the latch from back side door of house filed complaint. On the basis of complaint, FIR came to be registered in crime No.131/2011 of Vidyagiri police station.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
examination to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved seizer of TVS Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.KA.25/S8769 belongs to complainant under panchanama -Ex.P.3.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
jewelry shop situated at Gandhi Chowk, Dharwad. The accused asked owner of shop to produce articles shown by accused and accordingly, PW.6-Nagaraj Palankar has produced the gold articles sold by the accused and the same were seized by panchanama at Ex.P.6.
to prove the charges leveled against the accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 6.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
Mahadevappa Rajappa Gudimani has not supported the case of prosecution. However, evidence of PW.6-Praveen Huligeppa Hotagar has partly supported the case of prosecution. However, after treating witness hostile, during cross examination admitted all suggestions put by learned APP as per the case of prosecution about recovery of 20 articles under panchanama Ex.P.6.
accused has given voluntary statement Ex.P.9. On 19.11.2011, accused led police officials, PWs.5 and 6 panch witnesses to the house situated at Laxmisingankeri, Dharwad and produced 20 articles from his house, which were seized under panchanama Ex.P.6. Witnesses have also identified signatures of PWs.5 and 6 on the panchanama and that of LTM of accused. The seized cash from the house of accused was produced by accused came to be identified from photographs at Exs.P.4 and 5. The cash was ordered to be released to the interim custody of complainant. The defence counsel though has subjected PWs.6 and PW.7 to cross examination, nothing worth material has been brought on record regarding recovery of cash of Rs.30,000/- produced by
accused from his house came to be seized under panchanama Ex.P.6.
to prove the charges leveled against accused relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8 and documents at Ex.P.1 to 11, so also got identified Mo.1 to 5. The accused relied on the evidence of his sister DW1 and documents at Ex.D.1 and 2.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
Ex.P2 was prepared. After one month, Vidyagiri police station directed complainant to approach Keshwapur police station where accused before the Court was shown and he identified two gold chains and three gold rings as per M.O.1 to 5. The incident of theft in the house of complainant and gold ornaments were stolen from his house is not serious in dispute.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
witnesses to Jewelry shop of CW.9 (PW.5) Goutam Bhandari. The accused has asked owner to produce jewelry sold to him and owner produced articles, which were seized under panchanamaEx.P.3.
in order to prove the allegations made against accused relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8 and documents at Ex.P.1 to 8, so also identified one Nokia Mobile hand set as M.O. 1. Accused examined his sister as D.W.1, so also relied Exs.D.1 and 2.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
Nokia N-73 mobile was found stolen. On these allegations, complaint came to be filed and case was registered in Crime No.177/2011 of Vidyagiri police station.
the case of prosecution. The another co-panch to recovery panchanama PW.4 has spoken about the accused leading panch witnesses and police staff to his house. Thereafter, accused has produced articles from his house and the same were seized under panchanama-Ex.P.3. This witness has been partly declared as hostile witness. However, during the course of cross
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
examination by learned APP, he has admitted all the suggestions put to him as per the case of prosecution. On perusal of evidence of this witness, it would go to show that his evidence is consistent with regard to accused leading the police officials and panch witness to his house and producing the articles which were seized under panchanama Ex.P.3.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
recovery panch witness to the panchanama Ex.P.2. However he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Another recovery panch witness PW.5 has partly supported the case of prosecution. However, witness during the course of cross examination by learned APP, has admitted all the suggestions put to him as per the case of prosecution. On perusal of evidence of this witness PW.5, it would go to show that accused has produced 20 articles from his house and same were seized under panchanama. PW.8 investigating officer and he has deposed to the effect that accused has given voluntary statement as per Ex.P.5 and led the police officials and panch witnesses to his house and produced 20 articles, which were seized under panchanama. The two mobiles seized under the panchanama-Ex.P.2 were at Sl.Nos.2 and 3, which were identified by complainant-PW.3 and also by investigating officer PW.8. The recovery of two mobiles M.O.1 and 2 under panchanama at Ex.P.2 has been proved by the prosecution out of the evidence of PWs.5 and 8- investigating officers.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
been illegally detained in the police station. On 14.11.2011, sister of the accused Yellamma filed complaint against the police official and in support of such defence, DW.1 was examined and she has spoken about her brother/accused with his two wives and children were brought by police from Hubballi bus stand on 10.11.2011. On going to police station, she enquired regarding release of the accused with two wives and children, police officials refused to release them. Therefore, she went back to Sollahapur and filed complaint on 14.11.2011. On going through the evidence of DW.1, it would go to show that no any action was taken about the alleged incident of the accused with his two wives and children were brought by police from Hubballi bus stand on 10.11.2011 till 14.11.2011 and also no any explanation has been offered for not taking any steps.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
illegal detention. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution would go to show that accused is residing on Laxmisingankeri, Dharwad. DW.1 has not offered any explanation as to the reasons why they came Hubballi to board bus to proceeding to Sollapur. Therefore, both courts below were justified in rejecting the evidence of DW.1 on alleged illegal detention of accused from 10.11.2011 to 18.11.2011. The courts below have rightly appreciated the recovery evidence by independent witnesses and that of investigating officer, further justified in holding that recovery of articles under recovery panchanama has been proved by the prosecution. There are no any valid grounds to deviate from the finding recorded by both courts below.
CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2014 C/w.CRL. RP. NO. 100190/2014, 100191/2014, 100192/2014 AND 100193/2014
457 and 380 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- for each of the offences. In default to pay fine, sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for two months for each of offences. The sentence passed in all the cases referred above are ordered to run concurrently. The First Appellate Court for the reasons recorded in paragraph 26 to 29, referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly extended benefit in terms of Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. and was justified in modifying the sentence of imprisonment. The finding recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to the sentence is based on sound reasoning and the same does not call for any interference. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition filed by revision petitioner/accused
as per the following table are hereby dismissed.
| Sl.No. | Revision Petition Numbers |
Appeal before the First Appellate Court |
Criminal case before the Trial Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crl.R.P.100189/2014 | Crl.A.No.31/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.27/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
| 2 | Crl.R.P.100190/2014 | Crl.A.No.32/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.60/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
| 3 | Crl.R.P.100191/2014 | Crl.A.No.33/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.61/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
| 4 | Crl.R.P.100192/2014 | Crl.A.No.34/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.62/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
| 5 | Crl.R.P.100193/2014 | Crl.A.No.35/2013 Judgment dated 18.8.2014 |
CC.No.63/2012 Judgment dated 19.1.2013 |
The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad as referred above are confirmed.
Office is directed to transmit the Trial Court records along with copy of this order.
(Sd/-) JUDGE
Vb/-
2 issues framed by the court
Was recovery of the stolen property from the accused or at his instance proved sufficiently to sustain the convictions?
Did the modified sentences and their concurrent operation under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. warrant interference?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA SHIVPURE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ANIL B KATTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
