Dismissed

Mohammed Shafi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2023CRL.RP/454/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction for snatching and imposition of sentence. With the petitioner absent and relying on Section 403 Cr.P.C., the court found no merit and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; records sent back to trial Court for serving sentence and collecting fine.

Mohammed Shafi Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2015

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MOHAMMED SHAFI, S/O LATE SHEKABBA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT. PULLAMAJALU, MODANKAPU,BANTWAL TALUK, MANGALORE.

¶6

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ .A.C AND SRI. K.A. PASHA, ADVOCATES(ABSENT)) AND:

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶8

…RESPONDENT

¶9

Digitally signed by RENUKAMBA K G

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYARAM SIDDE, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.401(5) R/W 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN C.C.NO.117/2012, D.D. 11.2.2013, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANGALORE, D.K. AND IN CRL.A.NO.80/2013, D.D. 22.1.2015, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This revision is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M., Mangalore in CC.No.117/2012 and confirmed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in Crl.A.No.80/2013 vide judgment dated 22.01.2015.

¶18

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

¶19

The prosecution version is that on 15.11.2011, at 10.30 a.m., accused went to the house of the complainant situated at Bhavanthi Street, Managlore and asked for drinking water. When the complainant gave the water to him and turned towards inside the house in order to proceed inside, the accused tried to snatch away the golden chain from the neck of the complainant forcibly and then the complainant shouted loudly, seeking help of the neighbours. Immediately, the neighbours assembled there and caught hold of the accused and later on, police arrived and took him to custody and

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶21

complaint came to be lodged. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet. The accused was initially remanded to the custody and subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. He was represented by the counsel. The charge under Section 393 of IPC is framed against the accused and same is read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty.

¶22

In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and placed reliance on six documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial.

¶23

After having heard the arguments and after

¶24

perusing the records, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused by imposing rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence. This

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶26

order is being challenged by the accused before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Crl.A.No.80/2013.

¶27

The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not appear to argue the matter.

¶29

The learned HCGP supports the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court submitting that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Though learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not advanced any arguments, since this is a revision, this Court has exercised the power under Section 403 of Cr.P.C. and disposed of the matter.

¶30

The allegations of the prosecution disclose that on 15.11.2011, at 10.30 a.m., accused went to the house of the complainant and sought a glass of water and then complainant

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶32

offered the water to him. It is also alleged that thereafter, when the complainant was returning towards the room after offering the water to the accused, he suddenly tried to snatch away her golden chain from the back side and then she shouted. The neighbours rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused.

¶33

The complainant is examined as PW1 and she has reiterated the complaint allegations and subsequently identified the accused. Though she was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach her evidence. Interestingly, during the cross-examination of the complainant, a simple suggestion was made, asserting that since the assailant has snatched the chain from the back, she cannot identify the assailant. By making this suggestion, the incident has been admitted. Further, the complainant was admitted to the hospital and obtained treatment for injuries sustained by her. The complainant has specifically identified the accused for having committed the offence.

¶34

PW3 is the neighbouring witness and he has also identified the accused. This witness rushed to the spot

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶36

immediately after hearing the shouting from the complainant. Though this witness was also cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence.

¶37

PW2 is a spot mahazar witness and though he has turned hostile regarding he witnessing the incident, but he has supported the case of the prosecution regarding drawing the mahazar. The other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution.

¶38

There is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. Accused has not given any explanation except formal denial and asserting that he is not the person who has committed the offence. Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused. No illegality or perversity is found in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Courts below have imposed a reasonable sentence against the accused. Hence, revision

¶39

petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Revision petition stands dismissed .

¶44

Send back the records to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to secure the presence of the accused for serving the sentence and collecting the fine, if not deposited.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mohammed Shafi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafi 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

Khader Hayath Basha Vs Shahina Banu

Abdul Nafsal Vs the State by

Sri. Adukunhi @ Adam Kunhi Vs Sri. Ganaraja B

Smt Shazia Tabassum Vs Mohammed Ishaq

Dr H Hanumareddy Vs Smt Laxmi

Sri P Ramesh Vs Sri Prabhakar