Robbery conviction appeal: two accused showed a knife and snatched cash, mobiles, watch and debit card from two victims. Victims identified the accused at police station and in court; robbed articles recovered. Court upheld conviction under Section 392 IPC and refused probation benefit due to use of a knife.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 389 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED ARIF S/O ABDUL MALIK AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT No.2
NEAR HUSSAININA MAZJID MODI ROAD, D J HALLI BANGALORE – 560 045.
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI A S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANT
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:29.02.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC-VI, BANGALORE IN S.C.No.1049/2011-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(i) On the intervening night of 18th / 19th October, 2009, at about 1.45 am., while PWs.1 and 2 were smoking near a scrap shop in front of Stephen Square Merchants Association and behind Royal Restaurant, Broad-way road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru City, accused Nos.1 and 2 by showing the knife, committed extortion and snatched cash
of Rs.1,200/- and one Sony Erricson R-305 mobile, one Titan Fast Track belt watch and Canara Bank debit card and Carbon K-447 mobile, by putting them under instant fear of death. Charge came to be framed against the appellant – accused No.2 and also accused No.1 for the offence under Section 392 r/w Section 397 of IPC.
(ii) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked
the documents as Exs.P1 to P15 and material objects as MOs.1 and 2. The statement of the accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments has formulated the points for consideration and passed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, which is impugned herein.
NC: 2024:KHC:43522 CRL.A No. 389 of 2012
(i) The F.I.R came to be registered against two unknown persons and the appellant – accused No.2 and accused No.1 came to be secured under suspicion. The appellant – accused No.2 and another accused have been shown to PWs.1 and 2 in the police station. The Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellant – accused No.2 and another accused for the offence under Section 392 of IPC.
(ii) He further submits that, even if the Court comes
to the conclusion that the appellant – accused No.2 has committed the offence, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may kindly be extended to the appellant – accused No.2. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.
for the respondent – State would contend that;
(i) PWs.1 and 2 who are the victims have identified accused Nos.1 and 2 when they were shown to them in the police station. They also identified the articles seized from possession of the accused persons. PWs.1 and 2 have also identified the appellant – accused No.2 and another accused in the Court at the time of recording the evidence.
(ii) Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant – accused No.2 and another accused for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. He supports the reasons assigned by the Trial Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
“Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused No.2 for the offence under Section 392 of IPC?”
the following reasons;
NC: 2024:KHC:43522 CRL.A No. 389 of 2012
The incident had taken place during the intervening night of 18th / 19th October, 2009 at about 1.45 am. Two accused persons showing the knife to PWs.1 and 2 have extorted cash of Rs.1,200/-, two mobile phones, watch and debit card. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been secured by PW4 and other police staff on 21.10.2009 and they were brought to the police station. PW5 – the Investigating Officer has conducted personal search of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of Panchas and found the knife (MO.1) with accused No.1 and cash of Rs.1,400/with accused No.2 and they were seized under mahazar –
Ex.P8. PW3 is one of the Pancha to Ex.P8 – seizure mahazar. PW3 has deposed regarding seizure of knife, cash of Rs.1,400/- from the accused persons and preparing the mahazar as per Ex.P8 and identified the knife at MO.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:43522 CRL.A No. 389 of 2012
etc., from them. PWs.1 and 2 not only identified the accused persons in the police station, they have also identified them in the Court at the time of giving evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2 would contend that as the F.I.R came to be registered against two unknown persons, the Investigating Officer ought to have conducted the Test Identification Parade. It is not mandate to conduct the Test Identification Parade. PWs.1 and 2 have identified the accused persons when they were shown to them in the police station. More so, PWs.1 and 2 have also identified the accused persons in the Court at the time of giving the evidence.
police jeep and accused No.2 took them to his house and produced two mobiles kept in his house and they were seized under mahazar - Ex.P11 in the presence of PW7 and another Pancha. PW7 has deposed regarding accused No.2 taking him, another Pancha and the police to his house and producing two mobile phones and seizure of the
said mobile phones under mahazar at Ex.P11. The photographs of the said mobile phones are at Exs.P3 and 4. PWs.1 and 2, on seeing the said photographs have identified the said mobile phones. The said mobile phones have been returned to PWs.1 and 2 respectively and therefore, the photographs are marked. The robbed articles ie., two mobile phones and cash have been recovered from the accused persons. PWs.1 and 2 have identified the accused persons and also the knife – MO.1, mobile phone – MO.2 and the photographs of mobile phones and cash which is at Ex.P3.
accused No.2 and another accused for the offence under Section 392 of IPC.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
GH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 392 IPC?
Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended to the accused?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohammed Arif s/o Abdul Malik
State of Karnataka by Shivajinagar Police Station, Bangalore
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
