Dinesha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dinesha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; conviction and sentence upheld. Ancillary directions: Registry to send back the TCR with a copy of the judgment to the Trial Court to issue the conviction warrant, if not already issued; Amicus Curiae fee fixed at Rs.10,000/-, payable by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration is answered in the 'negative': the Trial Court appreciated the materials in a proper perspective, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence, and accordingly the appeals are dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Although PW.1 partially turned hostile, he himself explained during cross-examination that he was afraid of the accused; PW.2 (eyewitness neighbour), PW.3 (mahazar witness) and PW.4 (police constable) identified accused Nos.1 to 4, identity was undisputed, and nothing discrediting PW.2 was elicited in cross-examination. On these materials the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Key takeaways

The contention that PW.5 did not register the FIR immediately on receipt of information, thereby vitiating the investigation, fails: the PSI was compelled to rush straight to the spot, where waiting accused armed with weapons were apprehended; going to the police station first would not have secured their presence; no prejudice, ill-will or false implication was suggested against PW.5, and independent witnesses corroborated the case. The accused are therefore liable to conviction notwithstanding the sequence of FIR registration.ratio¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL — Conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC — S.C.No.15/2012, Prl. Dist. & S.J., Tumkur, judgment dated 02.02.2013 — appellants (accused Nos.1 to 4) apprehended at about 4 a.m. on credible information while assembled suspiciously before the informant's house with knives, an iron log and a motorcycle, making preparations to commit dacoity; seizure under Ex.P2, FIR Ex.P3 — PW.1 (eyewitness/informant) partially turned hostile but himself explained in cross-examination that he was afraid of the accused; PW.2 (neighbour eyewitness), PW.3 (mahazar witness) and PW.4 (police constable) identified the accused and supported the recovery — contention that non-registration of FIR immediately on receipt of information vitiated the investigation rejected: the PSI proceeded directly to the spot, no prejudice or false implication suggested — prosecution held to have proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Trial Court's appreciation found proper — conviction and concurrent sentences (RI 5 years + fine ₹5,000/- under S.399; RI 4 years + fine Rs.4,000/- under S.402, with default sentences) upheld; acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4 under S.400 IPC and of accused No.5 below not disturbed — all three appeals dismissed (M G Uma, J.); TCR to be returned for issuance of conviction warrant; Amicus Curiae fee Rs.10,000/-.

NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2013 (C)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2013 (C) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2013 (C)

IN CRL.A NO. 226/2013

BETWEEN:

DINESHA S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF GANGEGOWDANAPALYA, AREBOMMANAHALLI POST, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) (APPELLANT AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O DT. 18/06/2025)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SIRA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 02.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.15/2012 - CONVICTING THE

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 4 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.4,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 402 OF IPC. BOTH SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

IN CRL.A NO. 148/2013

BETWEEN:

GUNDARAJA S/O THIPPANNA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICAL WORK, R/O KOTTA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 577 210

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) (APPELLANT AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O DT. 18/06/2025)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH SIRA POLICE STATION - 560 001

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.15/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO AN ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 4 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.4,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO AN ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 402 OF IPC. BOTH SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

IN CRL.A NO. 208/2013

BETWEEN:

BHARATH, S/O. LATE NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT KAMAKSHAMMA LAY-OUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.

RAVI

S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, MANAVADEE TOTA, MASJID ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

(APPELLANT AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O DT. 18/06/2025)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SIRA POLICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

OF SENTENCE DATED 02.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.15/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, THEY SHALL UNDERGO ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 4 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.4,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, THEY SHALL UNDERGO ADDITIONAL S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 402 OF IPC. BOTH SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellant in Crl.A.No.148/2013 being accused No.1, the appellant in Crl.A.No.226/2013 being accused No.2 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.208/2013 being accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC and to undergo

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 402 of IPC, with default sentences., while acquitting accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 400 of IPC and acquitting accused No.5 for the charge levelled against him.

Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, on 23.11.2011 when PW.5-the Police Sub-Inspector was on night rounds, she received a phone call from PW.1Pandurangaiah at 4 a.m. informing that in front of his house five persons were moving suspiciously. Immediately she sent wireless message to her higher officer, went to the spot along with her staff, and found accused Nos.1 to 4. She found another person running away from the place. She managed to apprehend accused No.1 to 5, and seized 2 knives, an iron log and also a TVS Victor motorcycle under seizure mahazar Ex.P2.

It was found that they were making preparations for committing dacoity and have assembled at the spot. The accused were taken to the police station along with the seized articles, registered the FIR as per Ex.P3, recorded the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

statements of the witnesses. After investigation filed the charge sheet.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Exs.P1 to 3 and identified MOs.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. However, it has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 400 of IPC and accused No.5 for the charges levelled against

him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

of sentence passed by the Trial Court against them, the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.

Heard Sri. N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the common point that would arise for my consideration is as under:

"Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above point in the 'negative' for the following:

REASONS

It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, about six persons had assembled in front of the house of PW.1 in a suspicious manner in the wee hours of 23.09.2011. Immediately PW.1 has informed this fact to PW.5-the PSI, who

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

was on night rounds. On receipt of the said credible information, she came to the spot along with her staff and had managed to apprehend accused Nos.1 to 5 armed with knives, iron long and also having a two wheeler motorcycle. All these materials were seized after apprehending the accused under mahazar Ex.P2. The seized articles were taken to the police station along with the accused and the FIR came to be registered for the above stated offences.

The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PW.1, who is the eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that in front of his house, the accused have assembled and made preparations to commit dacoity. This witness has partially turned hostile. However, he has specifically stated that, five to six persons have gathered in front of his house in a suspicious manner. He informed this fact to one Chikkanna. The witness has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. But during cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, the witness has specifically stated that he was very much afraid of the accused and therefore he is not deposing the true facts before the Court. Thus, the reason for turning

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

hostile is made clear by the witness himself which is to be taken into consideration while appreciating the oral evidence led by the prosecution.

PW.2 is the neighborer of PW.1. He is also an eyewitness, and he states that he had seen accused Nos.1 to 4 assembled at the spot and making preparations for committing dacoity. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and identified accused Nos.1 to 4. He also stated that there were five to six persons gathered, and one person fled away from the scene of occurrence. Even though this witness was subjected to the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version.

PW.3 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P2 where-under MOs.1 to 4 were recovered from the custody of the accused immediately after apprehension. This witness also identified accused Nos.1 to 4 and MOs.1 to 4 and supported the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of the incriminating materials at the spot. PW.4 is the Police Constable who has drawn Ex.P2 and identified the accused and also material objects seized under the mahazar.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

PW.5 is the Investigating Officer who speaks about the entire incident regarding receipt of credible information by PW.1, going to the spot along with staff, apprehending accused Nos.1 to 5, seizing the material objects as MOs.1 to 4, registration of the FIR as per Ex.P3 and filing of the final report.

The materials on record disclose that, there are sufficient evidence against accused Nos.1 to 4 for having assembled at the spot for the purpose of committing dacoity and making preparations for the same in front of the house of PW.1. Identification of accused Nos.1 to 4 is also not in dispute. Since the tenor of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses disclose that the witness have deposed about the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4. Regarding identity, there is no dispute at all. Even though PW.1 has not fully supported the case of the prosecution, he has explained as to why he was not deposing the true facts before the Court that, he was very much afraid of the accused. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

The learned Amicus Curiae contended that PW.5 had not registered the FIR immediately after receipt of the information from PW.1 and therefore the entire investigation gets vitiated. The facts and circumstances narrated by the prosecution compels PW.5 to rush to the spot immediately with her staff, apprehending accused Nos.1 to 5 and seizing the incriminating materials which were in their custody. If PW.5 had proceeded to the police station for registration of FIR immediately after receipt of the credible information, it cannot be said that the accused would be waiting for her at the spot with weapons which they were armed with. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of learned Amicus Curiae in that regard. No prejudice or ill-will is suggested against PW.5 for false implication of accused Nos.1 to 4. Moreover, the independent witnesses-PWs.2 and 3 and the police constable PW.4 have deposed before the Court identifying accused Nos.1 to 4 regarding the offence in question. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused are liable for conviction.

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:24897 CRL.A No. 226 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 148 of 2013 CRL.A No. 208 of 2013

HC-KAR

I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Trial Court has appreciated the materials on record in a proper perspective and proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced them as stated above. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed .

Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, for information and for needful action i.e., to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.

The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, is directed to pay fees of Rs.10,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

MKM CT:VS