Mohammed Shafi vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 5972 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:30594
                                                      CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2015
                   BETWEEN:

                   MOHAMMED SHAFI,
                   S/O LATE SHEKABBA,
                   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                   R/AT. PULLAMAJALU,
                   MODANKAPU,BANTWAL TALUK,
                   MANGALORE.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. NAGARAJ .A.C AND SRI. K.A. PASHA,
                       ADVOCATES(ABSENT))
                   AND:

                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   BY MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION,
                   REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   BANGALORE-560 001.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. JAYARAM SIDDE, HCGP)
Digitally signed
by RENUKAMBA            THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.401(5) R/W 397 OF CR.P.C
KG                 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED
Location: High     BY THE COURT BELOW IN C.C.NO.117/2012, D.D. 11.2.2013,
Court of           PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM,
Karnataka          MANGALORE, D.K. AND IN CRL.A.NO.80/2013, D.D. 22.1.2015,
                   PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
                   MANGALORE.

                        THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
                   THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:30594
                                          CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015




                               ORDER

This revision is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M., Mangalore

in CC.No.117/2012 and confirmed by II Additional Sessions

Judge, Mangalore in Crl.A.No.80/2013 vide judgment dated

22.01.2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the

trial Court.

3. The prosecution version is that on 15.11.2011, at

10.30 a.m., accused went to the house of the complainant

situated at Bhavanthi Street, Managlore and asked for drinking

water. When the complainant gave the water to him and turned

towards inside the house in order to proceed inside, the

accused tried to snatch away the golden chain from the neck of

the complainant forcibly and then the complainant shouted

loudly, seeking help of the neighbours. Immediately, the

neighbours assembled there and caught hold of the accused

and later on, police arrived and took him to custody and

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

complaint came to be lodged. On the basis of the complaint,

the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet. The

accused was initially remanded to the custody and

subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. He was represented by

the counsel. The charge under Section 393 of IPC is framed

against the accused and same is read over and explained to

him. He pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the

prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and placed

reliance on six documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After

conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the

accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against

him in the case of the prosecution. The case of accused is of

total denial.

5. After having heard the arguments and after

perusing the records, the learned Magistrate has convicted the

accused by imposing rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence. This

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

order is being challenged by the accused before the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Crl.A.No.80/2013.

6. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating

the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal

by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by these

concurrent findings, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner did

not appear to argue the matter.

8. The learned HCGP supports the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court

submitting that all the witnesses have supported the case of

the prosecution. Though learned counsel for the revision

petitioner has not advanced any arguments, since this is a

revision, this Court has exercised the power under Section 403

of Cr.P.C. and disposed of the matter.

9. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that on

15.11.2011, at 10.30 a.m., accused went to the house of the

complainant and sought a glass of water and then complainant

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

offered the water to him. It is also alleged that thereafter,

when the complainant was returning towards the room after

offering the water to the accused, he suddenly tried to snatch

away her golden chain from the back side and then she

shouted. The neighbours rushed to the spot and apprehended

the accused.

10. The complainant is examined as PW1 and she has

reiterated the complaint allegations and subsequently identified

the accused. Though she was cross-examined at length,

nothing was elicited so as to impeach her evidence.

Interestingly, during the cross-examination of the complainant,

a simple suggestion was made, asserting that since the

assailant has snatched the chain from the back, she cannot

identify the assailant. By making this suggestion, the incident

has been admitted. Further, the complainant was admitted to

the hospital and obtained treatment for injuries sustained by

her. The complainant has specifically identified the accused for

having committed the offence.

11. PW3 is the neighbouring witness and he has also

identified the accused. This witness rushed to the spot

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

immediately after hearing the shouting from the complainant.

Though this witness was also cross-examined at length, nothing

was elicited so as to impeach his evidence.

12. PW2 is a spot mahazar witness and though he has

turned hostile regarding he witnessing the incident, but he has

supported the case of the prosecution regarding drawing the

mahazar. The other witnesses have also supported the case of

the prosecution.

13. There is no reason for the complainant to falsely

implicate the accused. Accused has not given any explanation

except formal denial and asserting that he is not the person

who has committed the offence. Both the Courts below have

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper

perspective and have rightly convicted the accused. No

illegality or perversity is found in the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence. The Courts below have imposed a

reasonable sentence against the accused. Hence, revision

petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

NC: 2023:KHC:30594 CRL.RP No. 454 of 2015

ORDER

1. Revision petition stands dismissed.

2. Send back the records to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to secure the presence of the accused for serving the sentence and collecting the fine, if not deposited.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS