Karnataka High Court
Indra vs The State on 4 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
c/w
CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1818 of 2016 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2015 (C)
IN CRL. APPEAL NO.1818 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. INDRA
S/O LATE MUTHU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302
2. KHADAL @ RAMA
S/O RAVI @ LAL MASAB
ABED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/A SHANKARAPURA HADI,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 577 302.
3. BANDOOS @ BANDU
S/O DR. BABU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A HAKKIPIKKI CAMP
GOUTHAMNAGAR
-2-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
c/w
CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
CHIKKAMATTI VILLAGE
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY YELAWALA POLICE,
MYSORE
REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTECNE DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. S.J.,
MYSURU IN SC.NO.212/2013 CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 400 AND
402 OF IPC.
CRL. APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. MANJA @ MANJUNATH
S/O LATE BABU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302.
-3-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
c/w
CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
2. MANNA
S/O LATE MUTTHU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY YELAWALA POLICE,
MYSORE
REP. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/C/O DATED: 15.10.2025]
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTECNE DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. S.J.,
MYSURU IN SC.NO.212/2013 CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 400 AND
402 OF IPC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-4-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
c/w
CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
Both appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence passed in Sessions Case No.212 of 2013 dated 01st October 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court"). Accused 2, 3, and 4 have filed Criminal Appeal No.1818 of 2016 and accused 1 and 5 have filed Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to these appeals are that on 4/5th February, 2023 during midnight, at about 11:30 pm, accused 1 to 6 along with absconded accused No.7, have assembled with deadly weapons with an intention to make preparation to commit dacoit of Friends Filling Station (Petrol Bunk) situate near RMP Factory Cross, Mysuru-Hunsur Main Road and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge- sheet, case was registered in CC No.278 of 2013 and the same was committed to Court of Sessions. After committal to Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.212 of 2013.
-5-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed Charges against accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PWs1 to 8, marked eight documents as Exhibit P1 to P8 and 7 Material Objects as per MO1 to 7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. However, during the course of cross-examination of PW2, Exhibits D1, 1(a) and 1(b) were marked.
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402 of Indian Penal Code and passed sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants have preferred these appeals.
-6-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
6. Sri Lethif, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, would submit that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.3-Deepak in Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2015 who is accused No.6, has expired and the absconding accused No.7 has also expired. The learned counsel would submit that the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, invalid, contrary to law and facts. The prosecution is guilty of suppressing material evidence and has not come to the Court with true version of incident. PWs3 & 4 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. They have failed to identify the appellants. PWs5 & 7 who are witnesses to seizure mahazar- Exhibit P7, have not supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of PWs1, 6 & 8, are Police Official witnesses and their evidence are not corroborated with any of the independent witnesses. There are material contradictions in the case of prosecution. It is submitted that Exhibit P1 reveals that the complainant-T. Shivakumar, Police Inspector has received the information at 11.30 pm on 04th February, 2013 that about 6 to 7 persons were suspiciously moving near petrol bunk, but the same is not entered in the General Diary. First Information Report-Exhibit P8 reveals that in General Diary, the time is -7- CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015 shown as 3.00 am. Though they received the information regarding movement of six to seven persons near the petrol bunk in a suspicious manner, the same is not entered in the General Diary. On the contrary, they have arrested the accused on 05th February 2013 at 00.10 hours and have conducted seizure mahazar as per Exhibit P2 between 00.30 and 02.00 am and seized the material objects. After seizure of properties and arrest of the accused, the investigating officer has registered the case against the accused in Crime No.17 of 2013 on 05th February, 2013 and submitted First Information Report to the Court on the same day at 3:25 pm. The complainant, who himself has lodged the complaint, has arrested the accused which is not permissible under law. The learned counsel submit that the police have filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 302 of Indian Penal Code in SC No.215 of 2013 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, in which accused were acquitted on 29th January, 2019. As against this, State has not preferred any appeal. He would further submit that the petrol bunk employees have not supported the case of prosecution. Since the complainant himself has investigated the crime, the credibility of investigation in the case is doubtful. Complainant -8- CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015 is the higher officer. In the case on hand, PW1 has lodged the complaint and Yelawala police have registered the case. When Yelawala Police have registered the case, the Station House Officer of Yelawala Police has to investigate the case. Instead, the complainant himself has investigated the case, which is not sustainable. The evidence of PW2 & PW7 reveals that they are stock witnesses and have deposed only at the instance of the Police. PW3 & PW4 are employees of Petrol Bunk. Only after the arrest, Police have shown the accused and prior to that they have not seen the accused. They have also been treated as partly hostile witness. To substantiate his submissions, he has relied on the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of JASBIR SINGH @ JAWARI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2015)5 SCC 762.
7. As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated evidence and record in accordance with law and facts and there is no ground for interference in these appeals. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeals. -9-
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
8. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the point that would arise for consideration in these appeals is:
"Whether the appellants have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, passed by the trial Court?"
9. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JASBIR SINGH (supra). In the said judgment, at paragraphs 11 to 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we are of the view that none of the charge in the present case, against the appellant, can be said to have been proved beyond Page 8 of 10 reasonable doubt. In this connection, we would like to quote following observations of the High Court, made in the impugned, after re-appreciating the evidence: -
"The statement of ASI Sube Singh and H.C. Ram Singh cannot be believed to the effect that they had over heard the conversation of the accused, details of which are given above to show that the accused were discussing their plan in detail to commit dacoity on the liquor shop, situated at Meerut Road, Karnal. It is
- 10 -
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015 apparently exaggeration and padding on the part of Investigating Officer."
12. Strangely, even after observing as above, the High Court has believed the prosecution story in respect of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. The High Court has erred in law in not taking note of the following facts apparent from the evidence on record: -
(i) In a day light incident at 1.20 p.m. within the limits of City Police Station, Karnal, there is no public or any other independent witness of the arrest of the appellant along with other accused from the place of incident nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm said to have been made from two of them.
(It is not a case where arrest or recovery has been made in the presence of any Gazetted Officer.)
ii) Complainant (PW-6) has himself investigated the crime, as such, the credibility of the investigation is also doubtful in the present case, particularly, for the reason that except the police constables, who are subordinate to him, there is no other witness to the incident.
(iii) It is not natural that the six accused, four of whom were armed with deadly weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police personnel before they are apprehended by the police.
(iv) It is strange that all the accused were wearing blue shirts, as if there was a uniform provided to them.
- 11 -
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
(v) It is hard to believe that the appellant and three others did not try to run away as at the time of the noon they must have easily noticed from a considerable distance that some policemen are coming towards them. (It is not the case of the prosecution that police personnel were not in uniform.)
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, which are apparent from the evidence on record, we find that both the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one punishable under Section 25 Page 10 of 10 of Arms Act against appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and deserves to be acquitted."
10. In the case on hand, interested testimony of official witnesses have not been corroborated by any independent witness. The evidence of PW2 & PW7 reveals that they are stock witnesses and have deposed only at the instance of the Police. PW3 & PW4 are employees of Petrol Bunk. Only after the arrest, Police have shown the accused and prior to that they have not seen the accused. They have not deposed anything against the accused as to the alleged commission of offence.
11. The complainant himself has investigated the crime. The credibility of investigation in this is doubtful. The evidence
- 12 -
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015 of prosecution witnesses reveals that the accused have not resisted the police officials before arrest and they have also not caused any injury to any of the police personnel before they were apprehended by the police. Even appellants have not tried to run away after witnessing the police personnel. For the aforesaid reasons, the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses will create doubt as to the alleged commission of offence committed by the accused. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeals are allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence passed in Sessions Case No.212 of 2013 dated 01st October 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, is set aside;
iii) Accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 399, 400, 402 of Indian Penal Code;
- 13 -
CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015
iv) Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn