Palamma @ Palamma vs State By Chitradurga Town P S
2023 Latest Caselaw 7293 Kant

                                                     -1-
                                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:37759
                                                                CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                                  BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
                          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 153 OF 2021
                      Between:

                      Palamma @ Palamma
                      W/o. Hanumanthappa
                      Aged about 32 years
                      Coolie
                      R/o. KHB Colony,
                      Chitradurga Town,
                      Permanent R/o Near
                      Basaveshwara Hospital,
                      Chitradurga Town and
                      District-577501.
                                                                            ...Petitioner
                      (By Sri Gopalakrishnamurthy C, Advocate)

                      And:

Digitally signed by   State by Chitradurga Town P.S.,
VEERENDRA             R/by SPP, High Court Complex
KUMAR K M
                      Bengaluru-560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                                  ...Respondent
KARNATAKA             (By Smt. K.P.Yashodha, HCGP)

                             This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
                      read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set
                      aside the entire impugned judgment and order passed by the
                      Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, at Chitradurga in
                      C.C.No.630/2017        order      dated      20.02.2020      and
                      Crl.A.No.52/2020 order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the
                                -2-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:37759
                                            CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021




Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Chitradurga
and acquit the petitioner.


      This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission,
this day, the court made the following:


                             ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section

397 of Cr.P.C., by the accused challenging the

judgment dated 15.01.2021 in Crl.A.No.52/2020 on

the file of the I Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chitradurga.

2. On the allegation that the accused, while

working in the house of PW1 as a maid servant,

committed theft of gold mangalya chain belonging

to PW1, was prosecuted for the offence punishable

under Section 381 of IPC. The learned Magistrate

found the accused guilty of the offence and

sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for six

months besides fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default

imprisonment for a period of two months. The

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

Sessions Court dismissed the appeal preferred by

the accused confirming the judgment of the

Magistrate and hence this revision.

3. I have heard Sri C. Gopalakrishnamurthy,

learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and

Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court

Government Pleader on admission of this revision

petition.

       4.   It      is         the          argument             of        Sri

Gopalakrishnamurthy that both                      the     courts have

perversely appreciated the evidence in coming to

conclusion that the accused is guilty of the

offence. His submission is that the offence is said

to have taken place on 13.09.2016 but the FIR was

registered on 12.10.2016, the delay in registration

of the FIR is not explained. Second point of

argument is that according to prosecution, a gold

mangalya chain was stolen, but material object

produced before the court was an ingot. PW6 is

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

said to be the purchaser of stolen property, his

evidence is that it was not the accused who sold

the chain, but it was PW2 who sold the same to

him and therefore the evidence of PW6 is not

properly appreciated. In this view both the courts

have wrongly appreciated the evidence.

5. Smt. K.P.Yashodha submits that PW2 is

none other than the mother-in-law of the accused

and evidence of PW2 is so clear that on the

request made by the accused, she took the latter

to the shop of PW6 and sold the gold chain.

Evidence of PW6 shows that he melted the gold

chain and converted it into an ingot. Delay is also

explained. Therefore there is no ground to admit

the revision petition.

6. After hearing both sides, it has to be

stated that, there is no scope for re-appreciation

of the evidence in the revision jurisdiction. Only if

it appears that both the courts have grossly erred

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

in appreciating the evidence, revision court can

interfere. In this case accused was a maid servant

in the house of PW1, which is not disputed. PW1

had kept her gold chain the Godrej almirah without

locking it. Accused came to the house of PW1 for

domestic work on 13.09.2016, and when PW1

opened the door of the almirah on 14.09.2016 she

did not find the chain. Accused remained absent

for the work from 14.09.2016 onwards. FIR was

registered on 12.10.2016.

7. So far as delay is concerned, trial court

has held that there was explanation. According to

PW1 she went to police station on 14.09.2016

itself and that the police did not receive her

complaint. She was asked to search for the chain.

This was the reason. The trial court has found it

probable.

8. If the evidence of PW2 and PW6 is

perused, I don't think that both the courts have

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

erred in appreciating their evidence. Though PW2

turned hostile to some extent, her evidence

discloses that she took the accused to the shop of

PW6 for selling the gold chain. To this extent, her

evidence is helpful. PW6 has stated that PW2 and

the accused had come to his shop for selling the

gold chain. When he enquired about the gold

chain, PW2 told him that the chain had been given

to her daughter-in-law by her parents. PW6

bought the chain for a sum of Rs.64,000/- and

gave the money to PW2. Later on he melted the

chain for and converted into ingot. The police

were able to recover the ingot only at the instance

of accused, who disclosed the fact of selling the

chain to PW6 while giving confession statement.

But for the disclosure made in the confession

statement, the police could not have recovered the

ingot. All these witnesses have not been

impeached in the cross examination. The trial

court has appreciated the facts in right

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

perspective. The appellate court has also re-

appreciated the evidence to confirm the judgment

of the trial court. I don't find any perversity in

appreciation of evidence.

9. At this stage Sri Gopalakrishnamurthy

submits that since accused is a woman, she be

released on probation. But Government Pleader

opposes the same on the ground that the accused

has criminal antecedents. The trial court has

examined whether accused could be released on

probation and finding the criminal antecedents of

the accused, it did not extend the benefit of

Probation of Offenders Act.

10. The judgment of the trial court indicates

criminal antecedents of the accused being

considered. This is not the first case that she was

involved, earlier she is involved in two cases as

has been observed by the trial court. In this view

the trial court is justified in denying the release of

NC: 2023:KHC:37759 CRL.RP No. 153 of 2021

the accused under Probation of Offenders Act.

Even this finding is not incorrect. Therefore I

don't find any merit in this revision petition. It is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMV