Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravikumar @ Ravinayak vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 November, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
CRL.A No. 937 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 937 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR @ RAVINAYAK
S/O LATE KRISHNAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A DUGLAPURA VILLAGE
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Digitally HIGH GROUNDS POLICE
signed by BANGALORE CITY
SUMITHRA R
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
Location: High
Court of STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 21/7/2012 PASSED IN S.C. No.289/2012 BY
THE FAST TRACK COURT-I, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.392 OF IPC. APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.392 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
CRL.A No. 937 of 2012
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-I,
Bengaluru City, in Sessions Case No.289/2012.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of IPC
and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
24.10.2011 at about 7.30 a.m., near the house of Prathiba
Ashok Aralikatte, 1st Cross, Vasanthangar, Bangalore,
when the complainant-Smt.Kumudini and her friend Veena
Umashankar (CW2) were walking, the appellant/accused
No.1 and another accused came in a Kinetic Honda
Scooter bearing registration No.KA-02-A-5056 and
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
snatched the gold chain of the complainant weighing about
40 gms. valued about Rs.60,000/-.
4. The appellant/accused No.1 was charged for an
offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. To establish
the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined
10 witnesses and got marked 8 documents and MO1-gold
chain. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.
5. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence, was pleased to hold
that the ingredients of the offence under Section 397 of
IPC are not made out, since the accused has not used
deadly weapons or caused any grievous injuries. The
accused was convicted for the offence under Section 392
of IPC and he was sentenced as noted supra.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the material witness namely CW2 who was
along with the complainant has not been examined and
PWs.1, 4 and 5 have not identified the accused as the one
who snatched the gold chain and therefore, the
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that the
panch witness to the spot mahazar has stated that he has
affixed the signature on Ex.P2 in the police station and
therefore his evidence also cannot be considered. He
contends that the ingredients of the offence under Section
392 of IPC are not made out and therefore, the appellant
is liable to be acquitted.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader contends that the gold chain has been recovered
at the instance of accused No.1 from the shop of PW9 and
the said witness has supported the case of the
prosecution. She contends that the gold chain has been
identified by the said witness and PWs.4 and 5 have also
identified the accused as the one who snatched the gold
chain from PW1. She therefore contends that the trial
Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence
under Section 392 of IPC and accordingly, she has sought
to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
8. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1, who is
none other than the victim in this case. She has stated
that on 24.10.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., when she was
walking along with her friend (CW2) near Prathiba Ashok
Aralikatte, two unknown persons came from the opposite
direction on a Black Kinetic Honda and snatched her
mangalsutra. She has further stated that when she
screamed, her brother who was talking to his friend
chased and identified the registration number of the two
wheeler.
9. PW1 in her depositions has reiterated the
complaint averments. She has stated that on 16.12.2011
the police called her to the police station and she identified
accused No.1 and gold chain-MO1.
10. PW7 is the PSI who has received the
complaint-Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered the case and
sent FIR-Ex.P5 to the jurisdictional Court. Further, he has
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
proceeded to the spot and drew the spot mahazar as per
Ex.P2.
11. PW6-Head Constable of High Grounds police
station has stated that on 15.12.2011 he was deputed by
PSI to trace the accused and on that day he apprehended
the accused and brought him to the police station. The
accused was arrested by PW10-PSI and he recorded his
voluntary statement as per Ex.P7. Further, his evidence
reveal that the accused led him to Shabari Enterprises
stating that he has sold the gold chain. The said gold chain
was recovered under Ex.P3.
12. A perusal of the evidence of PW9 clearly shows
that the said witness was working in one Shabari
Enterprises and the accused had pledged the gold chain
for a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
13. In the complaint it is stated that when the
complainant screamed, her brother and his friend chased
the accused and identified the registration number of the
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
two wheeler as KA-02-A-5056. PW4 is the brother of the
complainant and PW5 is his friend. In their depositions
both of them have stated that they have identified the
accused as well as the gold chain, after its recovery.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the witnesses have not identified the
accused cannot be accepted. Further, the evidence of
PW9 shows that the gold chain was pledged by the
accused in the shop and at his instance it was recovered
and the said gold chain has been identified by PW1. The
panch witness-PW3 to Ex.P3-recovery mahazar has also
supported the case of prosecution.
14. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that
the ingredients of Section 397 of IPC is not attracted and
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 392 of
IPC. Valid reasons are assigned by the learned Sessions
Judge to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence
under Section 392 of IPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
15. The incident has taken place on 24.10.2011.
More than 12 years have lapsed. There are no other
criminal antecedents against the accused. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused
has his wife and three children and he is the sole bread
winner of his family. Therefore, he prays to show leniency
and to reduce the sentence imposed against the appellant.
16. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The material
on record shows that the accused was in custody for a
total period of 11 months 22 days. Therefore, the period of
imprisonment already undergone by the accused can be
held sufficient. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The judgment and order dated 21.07.2012
passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City, in
NC: 2023:KHC:42500
Sessions Case No.289/2012 convicting the accused for
offence under Section 392 of IPC is hereby confirmed.
ii. The sentence is modified. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused
is held sufficient. He shall pay the fine amount of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo
S.I. for further period of two months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TL
