Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shivan on 6 November, 2023
Bench: G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.380 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION-560021
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
AND:
1. SHIVAN
S/O LATE B.P. RAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, KADIRANAPALYA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-38
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI EUGENE PRABHU B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S
Location: High THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1)(3) OF CR.PC. PRAYING
Court of
Karnataka TO i) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND
S.J., BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.366/2015 DATED
03.12.2015, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-
ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC; SET
ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
PASSED BY THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JDUGE,
BANGALORE CITY IN SC NO.366 OF 2015 DATED 03.12.2015
THERBY ACQUIT THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC; AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State against the order dated
03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of 2015 by the
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short
hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal
are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15th
February, 2014, on a credible information received by the
complainant at about 7.45 pm that certain accused are making
preparation for committing dacoity, the complainant and the staff
attached to Srirampura Police Station rushed to the spot and
found accused 1 to 6 have unlawfully assembled with deadly
weapons like knife, iron rods, etc. at Sharada Samaja Road,
Nagappa Block in Srirampura and were making preparation to
commit dacoity and accordingly, they were arrested and deadly
weapons were seized. After completing investigation, charge
sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and
402 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1 to 6. Since
accused No.6 was not available to the trial Court, a separate CC
No.19898 of 2014 was registered against him and after his arrest,
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
he was committed to the Sessions Court in SC No.366 of 2015 and
charges were framed under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian
Penal Code. The trial Court, by order dated 03rd December, 2015
was pleased to acquit the accused No.6 on the ground that
similarly placed accused 1 to 5 have been acquitted on 16th March,
2015 in SC No.866 of 2014. Being aggrieved by the order of
acquittal dated 03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366 of
2015, the State has preferred this appeal.
4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that impugned order passed by the trial Court acquitting
the respondent/accused No.6 who is charged for the offence
punishable under Section 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, is not
legal and proper and same is not in accordance with law. He
submits that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting
the accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice and same
deserves to be interfered with by this Court. On all these grounds
he sought to allow the appeal.
5. Having heard the argument and on perusal of
impugned judgment, the following points would arise for my
consideration in this appeal:
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
1. Whether the appellant/State has made out a
ground to interfere with the order impugned
dated 03rd December, 2015 passed in SC No.366
of 2015?
2. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the negative;
Point No.2: as per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
I have carefully examined the impugned order dated 03rd
December, 2015 passed by the trial Court. The certified copy of
the order Sheet pertaining to SC No.366 of 2015 reveals that the
charge sheet was submitted by the concerned police against
accused 1 to 6 and a case, for offence punishable under Section
399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, was registered in CC No.11904
of 2014 on the file of XXXVI ACMM, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute
that since accused No.6 was absconding, a separate case was
registered in SC No.366 of 2015. Accused 1 to 5 were committed
to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in erstwhile Fast-
track Court, Bengaluru City in SC No.866 of 2014, in which the
Sessions Court has acquitted the accused 1 to 5. Since the
accused No.6 was absconding, separate case came to be
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
registered in CC No.19898 of 2014 and after securing the
presence of the said accused, he was committed to the Court of
Sessions and a case was registered in SC No.366 of 2015. It is
not in dispute that the accused 1 to 5 are already acquitted in SC
No.866 of 2014 for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. Learned High Court
Government Pleader has fairly submitted that the State has not
preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal against
accused No.1 to 5. That on 03rd December, 2015, the trial Court
has passed the impugned order by acquitting the
respondent/accused No.6 on the ground that the remaining
accused 1 to 5 were already acquitted on merits in SC No.866 of
2014. The trial Court has also relied on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK v. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL reported in 2007(15) SCC 305; in the case of
HYDER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY POLICE
CIRCLE INSPECTOR, UDUPI reported in ILR 2015 KAR 970; the
Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA v. K. C. NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 KAR
1822; and in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUB-
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGEPALLY v. VADDE YERRA
VENKATARAMANA @ RAJU & OTHERS reported in ILR 2003 KAR
NC: 2023:KHC:39509
CRL.A No. 380 of 2016
3958. On careful examination, I do not find any illegality or legal
infirmity in the impugned order. The trial Court has rightly
observed the facts and circumstances of the case and acquitted
the accused. Absolutely, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
7. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal dismissed;
2. Order dated 03rd February, 2015 passed in SC
No.366 of 2015 by the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
