Allowed

Ramesha v. State by

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2024CRL.RP/47/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision by accused No.2 convicted under Sections 454 and 380 IPC for house theft. The High Court found no admissible evidence connecting him to the offence, held the charges were wrongly framed when Sections 411/414 IPC would have applied, and acquitted him.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; accused No.2 acquitted under Sections 454 and 380 IPC; fine amount to be refunded.

Ramesha Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.47 OF 2014

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESHA S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.302,9TH CROSS, SHIVANAGAR,RAJAJINAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SPP.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 & 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED BY THE III A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.23589/2011 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., C/C F.T.C.9, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.375/2013.I.A.NO.1/2014 FOR DISPENSATION; AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Revision Petitioner-Ramesha, who was accused No.2 in CC No.23589 of 2011, has preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29^th June, 2013 passed by the III Additional CMM, Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 05^th December, 2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2013 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Court").

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

¶22

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 10^th November, 2010, at about 7.00 am the first informant locked his house bearing No.249/A, 43^rd Main, 2^nd Phase, Ideal Homes, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore-560 098 and went to Srisailam for attending marriage function. When he returned to his house on 14^th November, 2010 at about 6.30 am, he found that

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶25

the front door was broke-open and after verification he found that gold ornaments worth Rs.75,000/- and cash of Rs.4,000/were missing from the house. On 24^th March, 2011, the Investigating Officer arrested accused 1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statement and on that basis, seized articles shown in PF No.34, 36 and 37 of 2011 in the presence of panchas under different seizure mahazar. Thus, accused have committed alleged offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

¶26

In response to summons, both accused appeared before the trial Court. The trial Court has framed charges for the alleged commission of offence and same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶27

To prove the case of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and got marked eleven documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. Accused have totally

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶30

denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf.

¶31

On hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days; further accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 454 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused No.2 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2013 before the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 05^th December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by both the Courts, accused No.2-Ramesh has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶35

Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the Revision Petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused without any evidence. There is no legal evidence to base conviction. The trial Court has also erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The trial Court has failed to comply with provisions of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the trial Court has received Exhibits P9 to P11 the full voluntary statement of the accused as evidence, which is not permissible under law. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that accused No.2 has committed the alleged offence. However, both the courts have committed an error in not appreciating the evidence on record and held that the accused No.2 also committed offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. On all these grounds he sought allow the Revision Petition and to acquit accused No.2 for the alleged commission of offence.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶39

As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the trial Court has convicted the accused and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused No.2, which is rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. He submits that the same is in accordance with law and there is no ground to interfere with impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perusal of records, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶41

Whether the Revision Petitioner has made out a case that the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate court are perverse, illegal and not maintainable in law?

¶42

What order?

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶45

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶46

Point No.1: In the affirmative;

¶47

Point No.2: as per final order.

¶48

Regarding Point No.1:

¶49

I have carefully examined the material placed before this Court. It is the case of prosecution that the accused No.2Ramesh has received the stolen articles from accused No.1Velu @ Gunda and one Prabhakar Reddy, who is not accused in this case, and sold the same for Rs.12,000/- to Manoj who is the owner of Paras Jewellers and also for Rs.6,000/- to one Dilip Kumar who is the owner of Om Sri Jewellers at Nagarthpet, Bangalore. A careful scrutiny of prosecution papers including the entire voluntary statement, which is not admissible in evidence, reveals that the accused No.2-Ramesh has not committed theft of articles and he has not involved in lurking the house trespass of the complainant. However, the trial Court has framed the charges against accused No.2 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, which is not sustainable under law. As per allegation, the accused No.2-Ramesh has received stolen

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶52

articles knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and also has voluntarily assisted in concealing or disclosing or taking alleged stolen property, which comes under penal provisions of Sections 411 and 414 of Indian Penal Code. But the trial Court has not framed charges against the accused No.2 for the commission of offence under Section 411 and 414 of Indian Penal Code. With regard to commission of offences under Section 411 and 414 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, this Court has examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

¶53

PW1-I R K Reddy-complainant has deposed in his evidence as to the commission of theft by braking open the lock, as averred in the complaint Exhibit P1. He has not deposed anything against accused No.2-Ramesh. PW2-P.M. Yogendra Kumar and PW3-Narayana Gowda, PW8-A.B. Rajendrakumar, Police Officials have deposed as to their respective investigation. PW4-Sudheer, has deposed in his evidence that he is having Pawn business shop at Sepping's Road, by name “Dharamchand Pawn Brokers”. That, about two years back, Chandra Police Layout visited his shop along with three accused in connection with a theft case. Police have

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶56

informed him that those three persons have sold gold ornaments pertaining to a theft case. As requested by police, he has handed over gold ornaments and police have seized the same under mahazar-Exhibit P6. PW5-Subhash has deposed in his evidence that he is having “Trimurthy Silver Refiners” at RT Street. About two years back, police officials visited his shop in connection with selling of some theft articles to his shop. As requested by the Police Officials he has handed over silver articles, which was sold to him and the Police have seized the same under mahazar Exhibit P8. PW7-Swaroop Kumar has deposed as to the contents of spot mahazar Exhibit P2. During the course of cross-examination, PW4 has deposed that he has put his signature in the Police Station on Exhibit P6. The material witnesses PW4 and 5 have not deposed anything against accused No.2. Even they have not deposed anything in their evidence that accused No.2 has sold stolen article to them. They have deposed in their evidence that police have informed them that three accused have sold the articles to them and at the instance of police, they have produced the articles and the police have seized the said articles as per Exhibits P6 to P8. The Investigating Officer has not collected

¶57

10 -

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶59

the cash receipt, bills and other relevant receipts as to the alleged transaction that took place between the accused No.2 and PWs4 and 5. Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the non-production of material piece of evidence in this regard. Absolutely, there is no evidence before the Court to show that accused No.2 has received the stolen articles from the accused No.1. Both courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Though there are no evidence against this accused No.2, the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the revision petition has made out a ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed against accused No.2 is illegal, perverse and not maintainable under law. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶60

Regarding Point No.2:

¶61

For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I pass the following:

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

11 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:49 CRL.RP No. 47 of 2014

¶65

Revision Petition is allowed;

¶66

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29^th June, 2013 passed by the III Additional CMM, Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), which is confirmed by judgment and order dated 05^th December, 2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2013 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore are set aside;

¶67

Accused No.2 is acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code;

¶68

Fine amount remitted by accused No.2 shall be returned to him in accordance with law;

¶69

Send the copy of this order along with trial Court records to the concerned Court.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Ramesha v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha v. State by

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

Sri M. Kumar Vs Sri B. Ashok Kumar

Mr. Manjunatha Vs Mr. Bette Gowda

Sri B S Vishwanath Vs Sri Bette Gowda

Mr M N Nanjunda Vs Mr M R Nagaraj

Sri Shameer Vs the State of Karnataka

K Basha Vs I P Haridas