Jameel vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10005 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                              BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.255 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

Jameel S/o. Fayaz,
Age 25 years,
Residing at Dodda Aladamara
Kallambella Hobli,
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District - 572101,

                                                    ..Petitioner
(By Sri. M. Shashidhara, Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka
by N.E.P.S. Tumkur. 572101.
                                                   .. Respondent

(By Sri. Rahul Rai K., High Court Govt. Pleader)

                                    ****
       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner
in Criminal Appeal No.94/2007 dated 06-09-2008 passed by the
Fast Track Court No.V at Tumkur, confirming the conviction
                                                    Crl.R.P.No.255/2013
                                 2


judgment and sentence with default/sentence in C.C.No.2119/2005
dated 10-09-2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M.
Court, Tumkur, as illegal and thus acquit the petitioner/appellant of
an offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, in the interest
of justice and equity.


      This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard through
physical hearing/video conferencing hearing and reserved on
22-06-2022, coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, the
Court made the following:


                            ORDER

The present petitioner was accused No.1 in Criminal Case

No.2119/2005, in the Court of the learned Additional Civil

Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who,

by the judgment of conviction dated 10-09-2007 and order on

sentence dated 24-09-2007 of the Trial Court, was convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the

IPC") and was sentenced accordingly.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.1 preferred an

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.94/2007, in the Court of the Fast

Track Court No.V at Tumkur, (hereinafter for brevity referred

to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which, after hearing

both side, partly allowed the appeal, by confirming the

judgment of conviction dated 10-09-2007 and modified the

order on sentence, reducing it to two years' rigorous

imprisonment. It is challenging the judgments passed by

both the Trial Court as well the learned Sessions Judge's

Court, the accused No.1/petitioner herein has preferred the

present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the

Trial Court was that, on the date 11-05-2005, at about 3:45

p.m., at 8th Cross, 4th Main, S.S. Puram Layout, within the

limits of the complainant Police Station, while CW-1 -

Smt. Usha was walking on the road, the present petitioner

(accused No.1) joined by split up accused - Sri. Saleem, Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

coming on their Scooter bearing registration No.KA-06/J-4397,

snatched the golden Maangalya chain, valued at about

`10,000/- worn by Smt. Usha and thus has committed an

offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

3. The accused persons appeared in the Trial Court and

contested the matter through their counsel. The accused

pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt

against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all eight

(8) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-8, got marked documents

from Exs.P-1 to P-7 and produced MO-1 to MO-3. However,

neither any witness was examined nor any documents were

got marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The respondent - State is being represented by the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge's

Court's records were called for and the same are placed before

this Court.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

6. Learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.

7. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused

the materials placed before this Court including the impugned

judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court

and learned Sessions Judge's Court's records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial

Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the

only point that arise for my consideration in this revision

petition is:

Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court that, the accused No.1 (petitioner herein) has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused

No.1) in his argument submitted that, though he would not

deny or dispute the occurrence of the alleged incident, but

disputes the alleged involvement of the present petitioner

(accused No.1) in it. He submits that the identity of the

accused No.1 has not been established by the prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt. He also submitted that the seizure

panchanama is not in order and that the seized articles were

not produced before the Court immediately by the

Investigating officer.

11. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent/State in his argument submitted that, the

complainant has identified the accused No.1 in the spot and

also in the Police Station and has given her further statement

identifying the accused No.1. PW-5 - Aravind the pawn Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

broker has identified the accused No.1, as such, the identity of

the accused No.1 is established beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Among the eight witnesses examined by the

prosecution, it is PW-1 the complainant - Smt.Usha who has

spoken about the incident. In her evidence in examination-in-

chief, she has reiterated the contents of her complaint and

stated that on the date 11-05-2005, while she was coming

back to home along with her daughter(CW-2) on the Main

Road, in the afternoon, two persons coming on a Scooter,

snatched the golden Maangalya chain worn by her. She has

stated that she has moderately seen them. Stating that she

has given a complaint to the Police Station in that regard, she

has identified the complaint at Ex.P-1. She has also stated

that she has shown the spot of the offence to the Police where

they have drawn the scene of offence panchanama as per

Ex.P-2. She further stated that one month after the incident,

Police had summoned her to Police Station where they Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

shown her the stolen Maangalya chain and also the accused

No.1. She has identified the accused No.1. Stating so, the

witness has identified the said accused in the Court. Apart

from describing the colour of the Scooter which was said to

have been used by the accused persons in the commission of

the crime, the witness has also identified the said Scooter at

MO-2.

In her detailed cross-examination, she has adhered to

her original version and made it clear that, after snatching the

chain, the accused persons did not run away speedily from the

spot. She also admitted a suggestion as true that the people

gathered in the spot immediately after the incident. Thus, in

her cross-examination, the alleged incident of chain snatching

has not been denied or disputed, rather it was admitted by

suggesting to the witness that immediately after the incident,

people gathered at the spot. An attempt was made to shake

the evidence of the witness that it was the accused No.1 who Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

has committed the alleged offence, however the witness

adhered to her original version.

13. It is relying upon the statement of PW-1 made in

her evidence at one place stating that she has seen the

accused in the spot and at another place she has stated that

she had moderately seen the accused on the spot, the learned

counsel for the petitioner (accused No.1) submitted that the

identity of the accused as made by PW-1, is not believable.

PW-1, no doubt, in her evidence at one place, has stated

that she had seen the accused No.1 in the spot moderately,

and in another place, has stated that she has seen the

accused No.1 in the spot, however, though contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that seeing a person

moderately does not mean that seeing a person to the extent

of enabling to identify him subsequently, but the same is not

acceptable for the reason that, a complete reading of evidence

of PW-1 in its entirety goes to show that, what the witness Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

meant by seeing a person moderately mean that it is

sufficient to identify him at a later date. Further, the same

witness in the very same evidence has also stated that she

has seen the accused No.1. Added to these, she has identified

the accused No.1 even in the Police Station also and has given

her further statement before the Investigating Officer about

identifying the accused No.1.

14. In addition to the above, the alleged involvement of

the accused No.1 in the alleged commission of the crime and

identification of the present petitioner (accused No.1) in the

crime is supported in the evidence of PW-5 - Aravind, who is a

jeweller and a pawn broker.

15. PW-5 - Aravind, who, in his evidence has stated

that, in the year 2005, the accused went to his jewellery cum

pawn broker shop and on the pretext of requirement of money

for purchasing the medicines, sold some jewels to him, for a

sum of `6,500/-. Accordingly, he has purchased the Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

Maangalya chain from the accused No.1 in the said

transaction. One month thereafter, the accused brought the

Police to his shop and in their presence got produced very

same Maangalya chain sold by him before the Police which

Maangalya chain the Police seized by drawing a seizure

panchanama as per Ex.P-4. Stating so, the witness has

identified the said panchanama, the accused and also the

Maangalya chain at MO-1 in the Court. A detailed attempt was

made in his cross-examination from the accused's side to

shake the veracity of the statements made by him in his

examination-in-chief, however, the witness adhered to his

original version and did not give any scope to dilute his

evidence in the examination-in-chief.

16. Thus apart from PW-1, even PW-5 also has

identified the accused and has spoken about the accused

selling the stolen article to him. PW-5 has also identified both

the accused No.1 as well the stolen article in the Court.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the identity of

the accused was not established, is not acceptable. In such a

circumstance, when the accused was identified not only by the

alleged victim but also by an independent witness who had

negotiated with the accused in the process of purchase of

stolen goods, however, without knowing that it was stolen, the

requirement of holding a Test Identification Parade (TIP)

would not dilute the case of the prosecution.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended

that the seizure panchanama at Ex.P-4 is not in order since

the names and addresses of the panchas are not shown on

the top of the said panchanama.

No doubt, the said panchanama may not be in the

manner or form prescribed under Order 1287 (4) of Chapter

XXIX of the Karnataka Police Manual (Volume-II), still, the

said panchanama, though not at the top, but at the bottom

mentions the complete names and addresses of the panchas.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

Hence, merely because the seizure panchanama is not said to

be in the prescribed manner, by that itself, it cannot be held

that there was no seizure of articles by the prosecution at the

instance of the accused No.1.

18. The evidence of PW-3 - Venkatesh and PW-4 -

Hirannayya would also go to show that, both of them had seen

the accused No.1 earlier since the accused had led them along

with the Police to M/s. Siddi Jewellery Shop (of PW-5) and at

the instance of the accused No.1, the shop owner had

produced the Maangalya chain as the one that was purchased

by the shop owner (PW-5) from the accused. The witnesses

have identified the said seizure panchanama at Ex.P-4 and

their signatures therein. PW-3 has identified the accused even

in the Court also. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 also

comes to the support of the prosecution to a large extent.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

19. The evidence of PW-2 - M.R.P. Aradhya and PW-6 -

Gangaraju speaks about the Police drawing the scene of

offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2 in their presence.

20. The evidence of none of the above witnesses could

be able to be shaken or weaken in their cross-examination

from the accused's side. Thus, it is established that the

prosecution could able to prove the alleged guilt against the

accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts.

21. Since the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's

Court, after appreciating the evidence placed before them in

their proper perspective, have arrived at a conclusion, holding

the petitioner/accused guilty of the alleged offence and the

Sessions Judge's Court, after re-appreciation of the materials

placed before it has rightly modified the sentence, making it

proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, I do not find

any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments and the

order on sentence under challenge.

Crl.R.P.No.255/2013

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands

dismissed.

[ii] The petitioner/accused to surrender

before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumakuru, within forty-

five (45) days from today and to serve the

sentence.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial

Court and also the learned Sessions Judge's Court along with

their respective records immediately for doing needful in the

matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE BMV*