Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Manoj Kumar

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024CRL.RP/905/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State challenged a trial court acquittal for snatching a gold chain under Section 392 IPC, confirmed on appeal. No chain was found on the accused's body search and no independent witnesses from the crowded spot were produced. The High Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

No relief; revision petition dismissed with no order as to costs; acquittal stands.

The State of Karnataka Vs Manoj Kumar — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.905 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, D.K., MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MANOJ KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ANIRUDDA

¶14

R/AT MANOJ BHAVANA NEAR S N POLYTECHNIC, KANHANGAD TALUK KANNOORU DISTRICT KERALA STATE - 671 315

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI MANOJ KUMAR -SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION BY SETTING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED IN C.C.NO.323/2015 DATED 15.02.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALURU WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149/2016 BY ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner. Respondent/accused is served and unrepresented.

¶24

Revision by the State challenging the Order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.323/2015 dated 15.02.2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K., whereby accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code confirmed in Crl.A. No.149/2016 dated 16.04.2018 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru.

¶25

Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶26

Accused has been charge sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Mangaluru South Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Complaint averments reveal that on 08.01.2014 at about 11.45 am, within the jurisdiction of Mangaluru South

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶28

Police Station, Mangaluru, on interlock space between the Town Hall and Gandhi Park, when complainant and C.W.2 were moving, accused came from hind side and snatched the gold plain chain weighing 40 grams from the neck of complainat by using force and putting her into imminent fear of death and thereafter, ran from the spot.

¶29

Based on the said complaint, Mangaluru South Police registered a case in Crime No.6/2014 and thereafter, investigated the matter, inter alia , apprehended the accused and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

Presence of the accused was secured and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

¶31

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, five witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and relied on seven documents exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 7, comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, photographs, spot sketch, voluntary statement of the accused, seizure mahazar and FIR.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶34

Among five witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1, in her cross-examination admitted that when she was called to police station after apprehending the accused, police conducted body search of the accused and clothes worn by him. But no gold chain was found in such a search. She admits that herself and her husband are employed in Police Department.

¶35

P.W.2 also deposed practically on the same lines as that of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are witnesses to Ex.P.2-mahazar and they did not support the case of the prosecution in toto and in the cross-examination, they were unable to state the boundaries of the spot where the alleged incident took place. P.W.5 is the investigation officer who deposed about the registration of the case and filing the charge sheet.

¶36

Learned Trial Judge thereafter recorded the accused statement and accused has denied all incriminating material found against him.

¶37

Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative analysis of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, noted that P.W.1 and her husband

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶40

are the employees of Police Department and admission of P.W.1 that on apprehension of the accused no gold chain was found with him, acquitted the accused.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the same, State preferred an appeal before the District Court, Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.149/2016. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and noted that material evidence on record was hardly sufficient to record an order of conviction that too for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Samuel vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1992)3 SCC 23 , dismissed the appeal of the State and confirmed the Order of the Trial Court.

¶42

Being further aggrieved by the same, State is in appeal before this Court.

¶43

Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶45

properly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and sought for allowing the petition.

¶46

He further argued that the complainant and her husband being the employees of Police Department alone would not be sufficient to doubt the case of the prosecution in toto , as admittedly, P.W.1 did not nurture any enmity or animosity as against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case and sought to allow the petition.

¶47

Respondent/accused, though served with the nsdotice of this revision, remained absent.

¶48

In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the State, this Court perused the material on record.

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the admissions made by the P.Ws.1 and 2 that when the body search of the accused has taken place in their presence, alleged stolen gold chain was not found with him is a matter established which would go into the very root of the matter in establishing the main ingredients viz., recovery of

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶51

stolen article in establishing the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶52

Further, except the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, no other material evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

¶53

Admittedly, incident has taken place in a very crowd area that too at 11.45 am. It is highly difficult to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the State that they could not get any other independent witness to speak about the incident.

¶54

The mahazar witnesses have not completely supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as they were not able to even narrate the boundaries of the spot.

¶55

Admittedly, the interlock space between Town Hall and Gandhi Park in Mangaluru is a crowded area where at about 11.45 am there would be sufficient general public moving around.

¶56

Under such circumstances, in the absence of any independent material witness placed on record by the

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶58

prosecution, learned Trial Judge was justified in recording the order of acquittal.

¶59

It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that an order of acquittal recorded by the duly constituted Court would reinforce the innocence in the accused.

¶60

In the case on hand, not only the Trial Court but also the First Appellate Court has acquitted the accused.

¶61

Therefore, accused/respondent enjoys not double innocence but triple innocence. Likewise, if two views are possible, the appellate Courts should prefer the view in favour of the accused.

¶62

Therefore, in such matters, having regard to the scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material on record is hardly sufficient to upset the finding recorded by both the Courts in acquitting the accused and needs no interference in this petition.

¶63

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following:

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:41487 CRL.RP No. 905 of 2018

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) Revision Petition is meritless and is hereby

¶67

dismissed .

¶68

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶69

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶70

kcm

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

The State of Karnataka v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vishal Ramesh Khatwani Vs State of Karnataka

Sannaiah Deceased Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri B R Somashekarappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Ms. Erica Vs Smt. Charumathi

Sri S S Umashankar Vs M/S Maruthi Oil Traders

H Shivakumar Vs Mahendrakumar