Karnataka High Court
Yogananda B G vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO. 438 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. YOGANANDA B.G
S/O GANGADHARA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.48A,ANJANA NAGAR
BEHIND KAVERI MINERAL WATER
FACTORY,VISHWANEEDAM POST
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 091.
2. MC. DILEEP KUMAR
@ DILEEP
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
Digitally signed
by B A R/AT NO.90,KRISHNAPPAJI HOUSE
KRISHNA
KUMAR 13TH CROSS, MANGALWARPET
Location: High
Court of OPP.BSNL TOWER
Karnataka
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA G, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJARAJESHWARAINAGAR
POLICE, BANGALORE - 560 098
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCES DATED:20.12.13 PASSED IN C.C.NO.36517/10 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND ALSO SET ASIDE
THE CONFIRMATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:13.5.14 PASSED
IN CRL.A.NO.671/13 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
S.J., BANGALORE CITY AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETRS.
FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGES.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read
with 401 of Cr.PC is filed by accused nos.1 & 2 challenging the
judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the III Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in
C.C.No.36517/2010, and the judgment and order dated
13.05.2014 passed by the LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.671/2013.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition narrated
briefly are, on 16.04.2010 at about 5.45 p.m., the complainant
- Smt. N.Soubhagya - PW-1 was learning riding a two wheeler
near Diet College within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagar Police
Station. At that time, accused nos.1 to 3 came to the said spot
on two motorcycles. Accused nos.1 & 2 were riding a pulsar
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EV-9361 and accused
no.1 who was the pillion rider in the said motorcycle snatched
the gold mangalya chain weighing about 40 grams from the
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
complainant's neck and all the accused persons escaped from
the spot. The accused persons were chased by PW-6 - Dinesh
Kumar, a police constable and at that time, the motorcycle in
which accused nos.1 & 2 were riding dashed against a auto
rickshaw and in the said accident, accused nos.1 & 2 sustained
injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Manipal Hospital at
Rajarajeshwarinagar for treatment. The complainant - PW-4
who came to know that the accused persons who had snatched
her chain had met with an accident and were taken to the
hospital, immediately went to the hospital and identified
accused nos.1 & 2 in the said hospital. Thereafter, she went to
the Police Station and lodged a complaint with regard to
snatching of her chain and also mentioned about she visiting
the hospital where the accused persons were taking treatment
for the injuries sustained by them in the accident and based on
the said complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioners in
Crime No.80/2010 for the offence punishable under Section
392 IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the chain which was
snatched from PW-4 was seized from the possession of accused
no.1 and subsequently accused no.3 was also arrested. The
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
Police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against all the
accused persons for the offence under Section 392 IPC and
since the accused persons claimed to be tried, the prosecution
to prove its case had examined 14 witnesses as PWs-1 to 14
before the Trial Court and also got marked 23 documents as
Exs.P-1 to P-23. The accused who had denied the incriminating
circumstances available against them on record during the
course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, however,
did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court
after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by its
judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 convicted the
petitioners/accused nos.1 & 2 for the offence under Section 392
IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
four years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed
by the petitioners against the said judgment and order of
conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.671/2013 was dismissed by
the Appellate Court on 13.05.2014. It is in this factual
background, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
courts below have erred in convicting the petitioners for the
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
alleged offence. He submits that the alleged recovery of gold
chain from accused no.1 was in Police Station, and therefore,
the same cannot be relied upon. He submits that none of the
independent witnesses who had taken the petitioners to the
hospital immediately after the accident have been examined.
Even the seizure mahazar is not supported by any independent
panch witness. He submits that PW-4 - complainant has stated
during the course of her deposition that it was accused nos.1 &
3 who had snatched the chain from her neck and also had
identified them, and therefore, involvement of accused no.2 in
the case is very doubtful. He submits that accused no.3 has
been already acquitted by the Trial Court, and therefore, on the
ground of parity, even accused no.1 is entitled for acquittal. He
submits that the alleged crime was committed by the
petitioners 13 years back. Petitioner no.1 is now a Chartered
Accountant and petitioner no.2 is presently pursuing his LL.B.
degree course, and therefore, prays to extend the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') in their
favour.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP who has strenuously opposed
the petition submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt and the courts below
are fully justified in convicting the petitioners for the alleged
offence. She submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders
who are involved in seven more similar cases, and therefore,
they are not entitled for the benefit of the Act.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
on both sides and also perused the material available on
record.
8. The prosecution to prove its charges against the
accused had examined 14 witnesses before the Trial Court as
PWs-1 to 14 and had got marked 23 documents as Exs.P-1 to
P-23. Amongst the witnesses, the evidence of PWs-3 to 8 & 10
to 13 are material in the present case.
9. PW-4 - Smt. N.Soubhagya is the complainant and
victim in the present case. Immediately after the incident in
question, she came to know that the accused persons had met
with an accident while trying to escape from the spot and were
admitted in the hospital. She had gone to the hospital and
identified the accused persons who were taking first aid
treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained by them in
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
the accident. Thereafter, she has approached the jurisdictional
police and lodged the complaint narrating about the incident in
question and also about the fact that the accused persons had
met with an accident and she had gone to the hospital and had
seen and identified them. During the course of her deposition,
she has reiterated the contents of her complaint and during her
cross-examination, the defence has failed to elicit anything so
as to disbelieve the version of this witness. PW-4 is also a
witness to the seizure mahazar - Ex.P-2 under which the gold
mangalya chain snatched from her by the accused was
recovered from the possession of accused no.1. She has stated
that after the complaint was lodged, the police had gone to the
hospital and brought the accused to the Police Station, and
thereafter, under Ex.P-2 - seizure mahazar, the gold mangalya
chain which was snatched from her neck was seized from the
possession of accused no.1.
10. PW-14 - Om Prakash who is another panch witness to
the seizure mahazar - Ex.P-2 corroborates the evidence of PW-
4 regarding seizure and he has supported the case of the
prosecution. PW-5 is the doctor who had treated accused nos.1
& 2 in the hospital and he has deposed that he had treated the
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
accused persons in the hospital and also had issued wound
certificate as per Exs.P-11 & P-12. PW-6 is the Police
Constable who had chased the accused persons while they tried
to escape from the spot. He along with PWs-7, 8 & 10 were on
patrolling duty and after receiving the wireless message they
were in search of the accused who had committed the crime.
11. The complaint - Ex.P-4 was lodged by PW-4 at about
7.40 pm. which is within two hours from the time of incident.
Before lodging the complaint, PW-4 had gone to the hospital
and identified the petitioners herein who were taking first aid
treatment for the injuries sustained by them in the accident
when they were attempting to flee from the spot. PW-5 - doctor
has also stated about the treatment given by him to the
petitioners herein in respect of the injuries sustained by them
in the road traffic accident. Therefore, the petitioners have
been identified immediately by the complainant after the
incident and the evidence of PW-5 corroborates the evidence of
PW-1 with regard to the identity of the petitioners.
12. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused
no.3 was also present at that time in another bike. Therefore, if
the complainant - PW-4 has stated during the course of her
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
deposition that it is PWs-1 & 3 who had snatched the chain
from her, it cannot be understood that accused no.2 was not
present with them at that point of time. According to the
prosecution, accused no.2 was riding the bike and accused no.1
was riding pillion, and therefore, snatching of chain could have
been done only by accused no.1 and not accused no.2. The
identification of the accused as well as the seizure of the chain
from the custody of accused no.1 has been proved by the
prosecution in accordance with law and the courts below having
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, have rightly convicted the petitioners for the alleged
offence and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
same. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
beyondable reasonable doubt and the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are well
reasoned and sound.
13. The Trial Court had considered the case of the
petitioners for extending the benefits of the Act and had
answered the same against them on the ground that the nature
of offence, facts and circumstances of the case, do not merit
invoking the provisions of the Act in favour of the petitioners.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2014
Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that in
addition to the present case, the petitioners are involved in
seven other similar cases, wherein the alleged offence against
them are punishable under Section 392 IPC. Under the
circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioners'
case cannot be considered for extending the benefit of the Act
in their favour. Accordingly, the following order:
14. Criminal revision petition is dismissed. The petitioners
are entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.PC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
