The State by Mangaluru North P.S., Vs Mohammed Fairoz @ Firz

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.22/2017 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.08.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.98/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALURU, D.K. AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 380 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court

¶25

Government Pleader for the revision petitioner/State and Smt. Priya A, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nitin A.M., counsel for the respondent and Sri Ismail M Musba, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

State is in revision challenging the order of acquittal

¶27

recorded by the Trial Magistrate in C.C.No.98/2016, confirmed in Crl.A.No.22/2017.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13728 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

3.1. Upon the complaint lodged by Smt.Rafiya,

¶32

Mangalore North Police registered a case and thereafter filed the charge sheet against the accused persons/respondents for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code.

¶33

Presence of the accused was secured and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, prosecution examined twelve witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and placed on eleven documentary evidence on record besides marking a material object namely, Purse as M.O.1 to establish the charges leveled against the accused.

¶34

Learned Trial Magistrate after due trial, noted that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the theft including the non recovery of the CCTV footage and non recovery of the stolen articles in the incident acquitted the respondents.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2017.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13728 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the State.

¶39

Being further aggrieved by the same, State is in this revision petition.

¶40

Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision of petition.

¶41

Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned orders.

¶42

Having heard the arguments of both side, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶43

On such perusal of the material on record, in a case of this nature, recovery of the stolen article is an important aspect.

¶44

Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no recovery of the stolen article from the custody of the accused

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13728 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

persons. No other connecting material is found in the case to establish the alleged guilt of the accused.

¶48

Further, the learned Trial Magistrate has noticed that the CCTV footages are not collected by the Investigation Agency to establish that it is the accused persons who are responsible for the theft that is said to have occurred in the house of the complainant.

¶49

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, an order of acquittal came to be passed which reinforces the innocence of the accused.

¶50

Further, the state has filed an appeal and learned judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation did not find any good grounds to admit the appeal.

¶51

Therefore, the accused who are respondents in the present revision petitioner not only enjoyed the double presumption, but triple presumption of innocence.

¶52

Having regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration.

¶53