Dismissed

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2023CRL.RP/409/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. accusing perversity in conviction and sentencing for theft of a golden mangalasutra. The Court held minor contradictions in circumstantial evidence did not affect the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; accused directed to secure presence for serving balance sentence.

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAMA PRASAD @ PRASAD, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, MILK VENDOR R/O BAPUJI NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA, PIN-577 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU-01.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE TEH IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.25/2018 IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.1053/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Principal CJM, Shivamogga in C.C.No.1053/2014 dated 12.03.2018 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.25/2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 21.09.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., when CW1 & 2 were walking on the footpath from D.V.S. Circle towards Mahaveer Circle near Kuvempu Rangamandira, Shivamogga, the accused came there and snatched away golden mangalasutra from the neck of complainant, which was weighing about 35 grams worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. CW1 & 2 shouted, but the accused ran away from

¶22

the place and thereafter, CW1 went to Kote Police Station and lodged a complaint. The police registered the same in Cr.No.153/2013 against unknown persons for the offence

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶24

punishable under Section 392 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 24.09.2014, accused came to be arrested and golden mangalasuthra was said to have been recovered from the custody of the accused. The Investigating Officer then recorded the statement of material witnesses and found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. The accused was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the matter

¶25

and he was represented by the counsel. The prosecution papers were also furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

The charge under Section 392 of IPC was framed against the accused and same is read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses and has also placed reliance on nine documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and one material object at MO1. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶29

accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of prosecution. His case is a total denial.

¶30

After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC with imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.A.No.25/2018. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, accused is before this Court.

¶31

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is inconsistent and contrary to each other. He would also assert that as per the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶34

evidence of PW9/CW9 the accused was arrested subsequently on the same day, but the records disclose that he was arrested on the next date and recovery was done and these contradictions were not properly explained by the prosecution. He would further assert that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, sought for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶35

Per contra, the learned HCGP would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below and contends that complainant has supported the case and recovery is established at the instance of accused and accused has not given any explanation regarding recovery and he has also taken inconsistent and contrary defence. Hence, she would contend that both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence with proper perspective and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below are not suffering from any perversity so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the revision.

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶37

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:

¶38

“Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?”

¶39

It is the specific assertion made by the prosecution that on 21.09.2013, at 6.30 p.m., when complainant along with CW2 was walking on footpath near Kuvempu Rangamandira, Shivamogga, the accused came there and snatched away mangalasuthra from her neck and in this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1 and in her evidence she has specifically asserted the fact and specifically identified the accused for having snatched away her mangalasuthra. PW1 was crossexamined and simply it is elicited that complaint was written by the police and she chased the accused for 100 to 150 meters. However, in the entire cross-examination, a simple suggestion is made that she has not personally seen the accused and at the instance of police she is giving false evidence which is denied. However, the entire cross-examination of PW1 clearly disclose

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶41

that there is no single suggestion to the complainant that he has not committed the offence as alleged, but on the contrary assertion was that she has not seen the accused personally, but the complainant is very specific in this regard and no reasons are forthcoming for complainant to give false evidence against the accused.

¶42

PW2 is another eyewitness and she has also deposed in accordance with the complaint by supporting the complainant that accused snatched away the mangalasutra. However, she further specifically asserted that the people apprehended him and in this regard they lodged a complaint, which is not the case made out by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has harped on this point regarding apprehension of the accused, but that itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of complainant who is very specific and she being the victim of the offence. PW3 is only a circumstantial evidence and he is not an eyewitness. PW4, Shivamurthy and PW5-Ganesha are the two spot mahazar witnesses. PW6-Aurn is gold smith who has deposed regarding he verifying MO1 and certifying that it is a golden mangalya chain.

¶43

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶44

PW-7 Aslam is a recovery witness and he has deposed that in 2013, he was summoned to the police station and there accused was present and from his pocket the property was recovered. Interestingly, his evidence was not at all challenged by way of cross-examination regarding recovery. Hence, his evidence that MO1 was recovered from the custody of the accused is not disputed. PW8 is another recovery mahazar witness. PW9-Yeshwanthkumar has deposed regarding apprehension of the accused on 24.08.2013 and PW10 is the Investigating Officer.

¶45

Much arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel relying on the evidence of PW2 and PW9. PW2 asserts that accused was apprehended on the same day, but PW9 claimed that he was apprehended on 24.09.2013. But the recovery was after arrest of the accused. Further, complainant has specifically deposed regarding accused committing theft by snatching away her mangalasuthra and her evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW7 regarding recovery of the material object from the custody of the accused which was never challenged.

¶46

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:30209 CRL.RP No. 409 of 2019

¶47

Looking to these facts and circumstances, the minor contradictions highlighted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner make no difference. Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused by imposing reasonable sentence. No perversity or illegality are found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Court below so as to call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and as such, revision petition needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Revision petition stands dismissed .

¶50

The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the accused/revision petitioner for serving balance sentence.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rama Prasad @ Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajanna Vs Lokesh B

Sri T R Naveen Kumar Vs Sri S M Shivashankar

Sri. B. Vijaya Kumar Hegde Vs M/S. Kanva Power Projects

Sri. v. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Sri. B.M. Rangaswamy

Sathish Shetty K Vs Self Growth Nidhi Ltd.

Siddik Huseen Vs State of Karnataka