Partly allowed

Deen Dayal @ Deena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024CRL.A/1848/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeal against conviction for robbery with attempt to cause death. It set aside the conviction for aggravated robbery (Section 397 IPC) due to insufficient proof regarding the use of a weapon but upheld conviction for simple robbery (Section 392 IPC). The appellant, having served 5 years and 42 days, was granted release.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 397 IPC set aside; conviction under Section 392 IPC confirmed; appellant sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and released if not required elsewhere.

Deen Dayal @ Deena Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1848 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEEN DAYAL @ DEENA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O LATE KUMAR, NO.75,MAYA BAZAR, 2ND BATTERY PENSION LANE, VANNARPET, VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560047.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. N GHOPAL., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R. HCGP)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 09.09.2022 AND 12.09.2022 BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-58) IN S.C.NO.365/2020 AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Appellant/sole accused has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one month.

¶23

This appeal is preferred to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and to acquit the accused.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶25

Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 28.07.2019 at about 1.00 a.m., when the

¶26

complainant/victim Shivakumar (PW.1) was standing by the side of road near Osia International Hotel, accused

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶28

with an intention to commit robbery attempted to stab him with a knife and then snatched a gold chain with a diamond pendant and ran away.

¶29

Before the trial Court, prosecution got examined 7 witnesses and got marked 15 documents and MOs.1 to 4, to establish the guilt of the accused.

¶30

Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7, held that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 397 of IPC.

¶31

In this case, the complainant/victim is examined as PW.1. Complaint lodged by him is marked as Ex.P1. PW.2 is the PSI who on receiving the complaint from PW1, registered a case against unknown person. The accused was arrested on 01.08.2019. At his instance, a gold chain with a diamond pendant, knife, T-shirt and cap were recovered.

¶32

In Ex.P1, complainant has stated that on 28.07.2019 at about 1.00 a.m., after having dinner at Osia

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶34

Hotel, he was waiting for the cab in front of the hotel. At that time, an unknown person wearing a cap and a red and white striped T-shirt came and requested him to give his mobile phone to make a call. When he refused to give the mobile and started walking, the said person came from behind and snatched his gold chain weighing about 18 grams. When he tried to nab him, he removed a knife from his pocket and attempted to stab him, however, he managed to escape and ran inside the hotel. He has further stated that several people observed the accused removing the knife and trying to attack him.

¶35

After registration of the case, PW.2 proceeded to the spot and prepared the spot mahazar – Ex.P2. PWs.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses. They have deposed about drawing up of spot mahazar-Ex.P2.

¶36

After the arrest of accused on 01.08.2019, the police have recovered a T-Shirt, Cap, steel knife and gold chain with diamond pendent, marked as MOs.1 to 4. It is no doubt true the panch witness-PW6 to the said mahazar-

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶38

Ex.P10 has turned hostile. However, PW1 in his evidence has categorically stated that in the police station, he identified the accused and the gold chain with pendent. He has identified the accused in the Court. In the crossexamination, nothing worthwhile is elicited from PW1, to disbelieve the case of prosecution insofar as the accused snatching the gold chain with a pendent worn by him.

¶39

PW7-Investigating Officer has deposed that after the arrest of accused, he led the police and panchas to his house situated at Mayabazar, Viveknagar from where he produced a knife, cash of Rs.1,000/- and the chain. He has further stated that the accused was wearing a blue colour cap, striped T-shirt and blue jeans pant which were also seized.

¶40

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused while committing robbery, attempted to assault the complainant with knife. In Ex.P1, it is stated that several people observed the accused removing the knife and trying to attack the complainant. In his evidence,

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶42

PW1 has not specifically stated so. He has stated that when the accused tried to stab him, he called the public for help. No independent witnesses are examined to corroborate the said evidence of PW1. In Ex.P1, it is stated that the accused was armed with a knife, whereas, in his evidence PW1 has stated that the accused was armed with a chopper like weapon. He has stated that after the arrest of accused, he was shown to him in the police station by the police. He identified the accused and gold chain with diamond pendent, but, he has not stated about identifying the knife-MO3.

¶43

As per prosecution, after the arrest of accused, MOs.1 to 4 were seized in the presence of panch witnesses and the accused was brought back to the police station along with the recovered articles and the accused as well as the seized articles were shown to PW1. However, the complainant has not specifically stated that he has identified the knife. Identification of gold chain with diamond pendent and the accused in the police station is

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶45

very well established. However, use of a knife-MO.3 by the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it cannot be held that the accused was armed with a knife at the time of committing robbery and he tried to stab the complainant with knife-MO3.

¶46

The trial court has found accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC. To record a conviction under Section 397 of IPC, prosecution has to prove that the accused has used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause death or hurt to any person while committing robbery or dacoity. The use of a weapon by the accused is doubtful. Further, PW1 has not sustained any injury in the incident. The findings recorded by the trial Court insofar as convicting the accused under Section 397 of IPC is therefore, not sustainable. However, conviction under Section 392 of IPC is based on the evidence and material on record and it is in accordance with law.

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶48

The appellant is in custody from 01.08.2019 till

¶49

today. He has undergone imprisonment for 5 years 42 days. The imprisonment already undergone by him can be held to be sufficient sentence. Hence, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶52

ii. The Judgment and Order dated 9/12.9.2022 passed by the Court of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in SC No.365/2020, insofar convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 392 of IPC is confirmed.

¶53

iii. Conviction and sentence passed under Section 397 of IPC is set aside.

¶54

iv. For the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶55

v. He shall be released from the prison if not required in any other case.

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:38284 CRL.A No. 1848 of 2022

¶57

¶58

I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and

¶59

it is disposed of.

¶60

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶61

HB/TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Deen Dayal @ Deena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal @ Deena 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

H S Raja Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Girisha @ Giriswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Radha M R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vasanth Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chirag. C. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Daicy D Vs State of Karnataka