Dismissed¶72

Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026CRL.RP/417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026, decided 08.06.2026 by H.P. Sandesh, J.: revision against concurrent conviction under Section 392 r/w 34 IPC dismissed. Held: revisional scope limited; conviction based on sole eyewitness P.W.1 (who died during trial) sustainable in view of prompt complaint (05.10.2008 incident, complaint 09.10.2008), Test Identification Parade identification, and recoveries at the instance of the accused (Ex.P2/P4/P5; Rs.1,07,200/- cash, 4 gold bangles, 13 silver coins); 3-year sentence and Rs.5,000/- fine commensurate with gravity; no interference. Accused No.2 dead, case abated. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition is dismissed and the conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, stand undisturbed. ¶72

Rathnamma Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition is dismissed and the conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, stand undisturbed.

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting the petitioners under Section 392 IPC contain any error of legality or correctness warranting interference, given the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. +4 more

¶62

Court's answer

No grounds exist to exercise the revisional jurisdiction; there is no error on the part of the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence, and the judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from illegality or incorrectness.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

The conviction is not rendered unsafe by the condition or death of sole eyewitness P.W.1: the accused persons were identified in the Test Identification Parade by P.W.1, and there was recovery of gold ornaments, silver coins and cash at the instance of the accused.

¶61

Key takeaways

The recovery at the instance of the accused is substantiated: Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 were drawn, witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 support the prosecution on recovery, and the First Appellate Court took note of P.W.9's evidence on the Test Identification Parade (Exs.P6 to Ex.P52).ratio¶65
The contention of delay in filing the complaint is rejected: the incident occurred on 05.10.2008 and the complaint was given on 09.10.2008; P.W.1 categorically deposed that the police were informed immediately after the incident and the written complaint was given within 2 to 3 days.ratio¶58
The sentence of 3 years is not exorbitant and is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the material on record; no interference with the sentence is warranted in revision.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (S. 397 r/w 401 Cr.PC) — conviction under S. 392 r/w S. 34 IPC for robbery committed on 05.10.2008 in the house of the complainant (P.W.1) — concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (judgment dated 17.07.2025 in Crl.A No.34/2019) — scope of revision limited; no error in appreciation of evidence — conviction not unsafe merely because the sole eyewitness P.W.1 was aged, could not be fully cross-examined and died during trial, where the complaint was prompt (given 09.10.2008, within 2-3 days), the accused were identified in the Test Identification Parade (spoken to by P.W.9), and cash, 4 gold bangles and 13 silver coins were recovered at their instance (Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P5; supported by P.W.4 and P.W.5) — sentence of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- commensurate with the gravity of the offence — revision petition dismissed (H.P. Sandesh, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.417 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RATHNAMMA W/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS HOUSE KEEPING MAHADEVAPURA, S.R.ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN/TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SANNABORAIAH S/O YATHINA PALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NELAGATNATTI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶13

DODDABORA S/O BANGARAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O DODAHATTI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT. VEENA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHALLAKERE POLICE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILIDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHALLAKERE IN CRL.A NO.34/2019 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS HEREIN/ACCUSED PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶30

The records are secured and the offence invoked against the revision petitioners is under Section 392 of IPC and the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The material objects are ordered to be released in favour of the victim.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The factual matrix of case of the prosecution in brief is that Bheemappa is the resident of Challakere. That on 05.10.2008, when the complainant was alone in his house, on the reason that whether he requires any housemaid, accused Nos.1 to 4 made entry in his house at about 11.30 a.m. and having so entered, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the guise of enquiring the requirement of housemaid, accused Nos.3 and 4 held his arms and pushed him into the bedroom, they covered his face with towel and closing his mouth, accused No.4 took out the keys from his pocket and gave it to accused Nos.1 and 2, the latter accused by opening the cupboard, stolen amount of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and Rs.14,000/- petty cash, 4 gold bangles and 13 silver coins.

¶34

Based on this incident, a complaint was given and the same was registered. Thereafter, procedure was conducted by drawing mahazar and at the first instance, accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested and at their instance, Rs.33,000/- and Rs.15,100/- cash were recovered. Further, on 18.10.2008, accused Nos.1 and 4 were arrested and at their instance, Rs.1,07,200/- cash, 4 gold bangles and 13 silver coins were

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

seized by the I.O. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were also subjected to Test Identification Parade and the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter, filed the charge-sheet. The accused persons being secured before the Trial Court did not plead guilty and claims trial.

¶39

Hence, prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.11 and material objects used for committing the crime were also marked as M.Os.1 to 7, including 4 gold bangles, 13 silver coils, towel and slipper and in 313 statement, the accused totally denied the incriminating evidence and not led any defence evidence.

¶40

The Trial Court, particularly considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.11 i.e., the voluntary statement as well as seizure at the instance of the accused comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2019 and considering the grounds which have been urged before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also taken note of evidence of

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

particularly, P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.11 and so also I.O. and recovery was also proved by examining the recovery witnesses and considering the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶45

The present revision petition is filed before this

¶46

Court against the concurrent finding of both the Courts. This Court secured the records and main grounds urged in the revision petition before this Court is that conviction rests primarily on the evidence of P.W.1, who was the sole eyewitness to the alleged incident. P.W.1 was an aged person and during trial itself, the Court recorded his inability to clearly recollect facts due to memory impairment. He could not be fully cross-examined and subsequently, he passed away during the pendency of the trial. The counsel also vehemently contend that in a case of serious charges of robbery where severe punishment is prescribed, it is unsafe to base conviction on such incomplete and infirm testimony. The counsel also vehemently contend that evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.11 is also not consistent with regard to proving of Ex.P2 recovery at the instance of the accused. The counsel would further contend

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

that though the incident is of the year 2008, now we are in 2026 and the revision petitioners are aged about 60 and 68 years and they are the senior citizens and the Court has to take note of said fact into consideration.

¶51

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶52

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the incident has taken place when P.W.1 was alone in the house. Apart from that, Test Identification Parade was also conducted and accused persons were identified at the time of Test Identification Parade

¶53

and also before the Court, they supported the case of prosecution and the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.11 is specific with regard to recovery is concerned and the case of the prosecution is consistent and there is no material contradictions and the same was considered by both the Courts and the scope of revision is also very limited.

¶54

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also considering the factual aspects of the case, when the offence under Section 392 of IPC is committed in the house of P.W.1

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

and P.W.1 has lodged the complaint and thereafter, accused persons were arrested and voluntary statement was recorded and recovery was made at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 4 to the tune of Rs.1,07,200/- and also gold ornaments i.e., 4 gold bangles, 13 silver coins and also an amount of Rs.33,000/and Rs.15,100/- from accused Nos.2 and 3. To that effect, Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 were also drawn and witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 support the case of prosecution with regard to the recovery and also Test Identification Parade was conducted, P.W.1 also identified the accused persons and the same was spoken by P.W.9.

¶58

Having considered the evidence available on record, though counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contend that there was delay of one month in filing the complaint. But, records disclose that incident has taken place on 05.10.2008 and complaint was given on 09.10.2008 and P.W.1 categorically deposed that immediately after the incident, it was informed to the police and written complaint was given on 09.10.2008 and Ex.P1 also discloses that written complaint was given on 09.10.2008. It is specifically deposed

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

by P.W.1 that complaint was given within 2 to 3 days of the incident and there are no inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident as well as Test Identification Parade and also accused persons were identified in the Test Identification Parade by P.W.1 and so also there is recovery at the instance of accused persons i.e., gold ornaments as well as silver coins and also cash from the accused at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 4 as well as accused No.3 and accused No.2.

¶62

No doubt, the records disclose that accused No.2 is no more and case against accused No.2 is abated, but on perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered the material on record and the scope of revision is very limited and this Court has to examine the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly in paragraph Nos.26, 27, 28 and 29 i.e., the evidence of P.W.9, who is the Officer, who conducted the Test Identification Parade of all the four accused

¶63

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

by summoning P.W.1 and one Naganna narrated the procedure and he followed in preparing Exs.P6 to Ex.P52 as well as recovery at the instance of accused persons i.e., Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 is also substantiated.

¶66

Under the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. There is no error on the part of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from its legality and correctness. With regard to quantum of punishment also, the Court has to take note that it must commensurate with the gravity of the offence. In the case on hand, when P.W.1 was alone in the house, the accused entered the house and snatched the gold ornaments as well as cash i.e., to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same is also recovered. The sentence of 3 years is also not exorbitant and the same commensurate with the gravity of the offence as well as the material available on record and in respect of the sentence also, it does not require any interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, no ground is made out

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:27070 CRL.RP No. 417 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and the First

¶71

Appellate Court.

¶72

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶73

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court convicting the petitioners under Section 392 IPC contain any error of legality or correctness warranting interference, given the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.¶62
The court held
No grounds exist to exercise the revisional jurisdiction; there is no error on the part of the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence, and the judgment of conviction and sentence does not suffer from illegality or incorrectness.ratio¶66
2.
Whether the conviction, resting primarily on the evidence of P.W.1 — the sole eyewitness, an aged person who could not clearly recollect facts, was not fully cross-examined and died during the pendency of the trial — is safe and sustainable.¶46
The court held
The conviction is not rendered unsafe by the condition or death of sole eyewitness P.W.1: the accused persons were identified in the Test Identification Parade by P.W.1, and there was recovery of gold ornaments, silver coins and cash at the instance of the accused.ratio¶61
3.
Whether the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.11 with regard to proving the Ex.P2 recovery at the instance of the accused is consistent and reliable.¶46
The court held
The recovery at the instance of the accused is substantiated: Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 were drawn, witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 support the prosecution on recovery, and the First Appellate Court took note of P.W.9's evidence on the Test Identification Parade (Exs.P6 to Ex.P52).ratio¶65
4.
Whether the alleged delay of one month in filing the complaint undermines the prosecution case.¶58
The court held
The contention of delay in filing the complaint is rejected: the incident occurred on 05.10.2008 and the complaint was given on 09.10.2008; P.W.1 categorically deposed that the police were informed immediately after the incident and the written complaint was given within 2 to 3 days.ratio¶58
5.
Whether the sentence of 3 years imposed on the petitioners is commensurate with the gravity of the offence or requires interference in revision.¶66
The court held
The sentence of 3 years is not exorbitant and is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the material on record; no interference with the sentence is warranted in revision.ratio¶66

Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Sri D S Damarugendra

Paramesha K S Vs Arunkumar K K@ Arun

Yenjappa S/O Siddappa Vs Smt.Kenchamma W/O Muddappa

Mr a Alfred Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jayakumar B Vs Mr. Basavaraju U H

Titan Engineers Vs M/S.Trident Industries