Karthik @ Poonekutti @Lambu @ Rowdy Vs the State of Karnataka

KARTHIK @ POONEKUTTI @ LAMBU @ ROWDY S/O PALANISWAMY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O BEHIND KUPPANNA GARAGE, VIDYANAGAR CROSS, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 110

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE) (APPELLANT AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O. DATED:11.06.2025)

¶15

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 01

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DIST. AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶22

2 -

¶23

S.C.NO.132/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶24

IN CRL.A NO. 864/2013

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. S.M. MURALI, S/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT, HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 064 (NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. SRINATHA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE BANGALORE - 560 064

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶33

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21/23.08.13 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.132/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400 OF IPC.

¶34

IN CRL.A NO. 885/2013

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

MURALI S/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND KUPPANNA GARGE, VIDYANAGAR CROSS,

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER

¶39

JALA HOBLI - 562 110 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (NORTH IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

(BY SRI. BHARATH .B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

STATE BY CHIKKA JALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 110

¶44

...RESPONDENT

¶45

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP)

¶46

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN S.C.NO.132/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶47

IN CRL.A NO. 896/2013

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

SRINIVASA @ SENA SON OF LATE MUTTUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND HOSPITAL, VIDHYANAGAR CROSS, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BNAGALORE-562157

¶50

...APPELLANT

¶51

(BY SMT. TEJASWINI .V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANKARAPPA .S., ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶55

4 -

¶56

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶57

...RESPONDENT

¶58

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶59

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN S.C.NO.132/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶60

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

¶61

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶62

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶63

The appellant in Crl.A.No.911/2013 being accused No.1, the appellant in Crl.A.No.896/2013 being accused No.2, the appellant in Crl.A.No.885/2013 being accused No.3, and the appellant in Crl.A.No.864/2013 being accused No.4 in S.C.No.132/2012, on the file of the learned V Additional Session Judge, Devanahalli, are impugning the Judgment of Conviction dated 21.08.2013 and Order of Sentence dated 23.08.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 400 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 399

¶64

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶65

of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 400 of IPC, with default sentences.

¶66

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 18.09.2011 at 6:30 p.m, PW7 received credible information that few persons have assembled in a gang, making preparations to commit dacoity. Immediately, he rushed to the spot along with his staff, found accused Nos.1 to 5 armed with knife, clubs and chilli powder packets. PW7 satisfied himself that, the accused were part of a gang, and they made preparation for committing the dacoity, surrounded them and caught hold of accused Nos.1 to 4, while accused No.5 escaped and ran away.

¶67

It is the further contention of the prosecution that, the knife in the custody of accused No.1, clubs in the hands of accused Nos. 2 & 3 and 2 chili powder packets from accused No.4 were recovered under the mahazar-Ex.P1. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were brought to the police station. PW7 produced report as per Ex.P2, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation, filed charge

¶68

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶69

sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 and since, accused No.5 was absconding, a split-up case came to be filed against him and committed the matter to the Sessions Court.

¶70

The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs-1 to 7, got marked Ex.P1 to 3, identified MOs.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence.

¶71

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 offences punishable under Sections 399 and 400 of IPC and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred these appeals.

¶72

Heard Sri. P.B.Umesh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant - accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.911/2013, Smt. Tejaswini.V, learned counsel for Sri.Shankarappa.S, learned

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

counsel for the appellant- accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.896/2013, Sri. Bharath.B, learned counsel for Sri. Subramanya.H.V, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.885/2013, Sri. Srinatha B.V, learned counsel for Sri. Nanjunda Gowda.M.R, learned counsel for the appellantaccused No.4 in Crl.A.No.864/2013 and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶76

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

¶77

“Whether the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

¶78

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶79

REASONS

¶80

It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused

¶81

Nos.1 to 5, being part of the gang of dacoits made preparations

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶83

to commit dacoity and accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended by PW7 with the help of his staff members and seized the incriminating weapons as per MOs.1 to 4. Even though the prosecution examined 7 witnesses including PWs.4 and 5 being the independent mahazar witnesses to Ex.P1, both these independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, and they have turned hostile. PWs.1 to 3 are the police constables working under PW7. PW6 is the SI, who received the report - Ex.P2 from PW7 and registered the FIR as per Ex.P3 and filed the charge sheet. PW7 is the person who is said to have received the credible information, went to the spot, apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4, seized MOs.1 to 4 and submitted the report Ex.P2.

¶84

According to PWs. 1 and 2 they were informed by PW7 that, there was a galata and therefore, they were required to proceed to the spot. According to PW7, he had received credible information that, there were 5 to 6 persons assembled, armed with weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity and therefore, he proceeded to the spot along with his staff. It is also pertinent to note that the incident is said to have occurred

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶86

at 6.30 in the evening on 18.09.2011. Therefore, it was not as if accused Nos. 1 to 4 have assembled in the dead night, armed with weapons.

¶87

As per Ex.P1 - mahazar, the mobile hand sets were recovered form the accused. The same are not part of the charge sheet in the present case. The explanation given by PW7 is that, the accused have referred to snatching of the mobile handsets from two different persons and therefore, separate criminal cases were registered against the accused and the said mobile handsets seized in the present case under Ex.P1 were transferred to the separate criminal cases which were registered against them. But unfortunately, no scarp of paper is produced in support of such contention and even PW7 has not given the details of the other criminal cases registered against the accused for having snatched mobile handsets, which they were in possession of.

¶88

It is also pertinent to note that, PW7 categorically stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 are local residents. Under such circumstances, they gathering at 6.30 pm at a place cannot be treated as if they had assembled with an intention to be part of

¶89

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶90

an unlawful assembly, or were part of unlawful assembly making preparations to commit dacoity. Regarding seizure of MOs.1 to 4, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 7, who are the police officials. However, PWs.4 and 5 being the independent mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. It is also pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer has not produced the case dairy to contend that he had received credible information regarding assembly of accused Nos. 1 to 4 by making preparations to commit dacoity. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and 7 to form an opinion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt will arise regarding case made out by the prosecution against the accused and the same is not expelled from placing cogent materials.

¶91

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused

¶92

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25204 CRL.A No. 911 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013 CRL.A No. 885 of 2013 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶93

beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

¶94

I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has proceeded to accept the version of PWs.1 to 3 and 7 to convict the accused ignoring the facts discussed above, which give rise to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with.

¶95

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed.

¶98

(ii) The Judgment of Conviction dated 21.08.2013 and Order of Sentence dated 23.08.2013 passed in S.C.No.132/2012 on the file of the learned V Additional Session Judge, Devanahalli, is hereby set aside.

¶99