Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Hanief vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
CRL.RP No. 342 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.342 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMED HANIEF
S/O YUSUF BYARI
AGED BOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT JODUKATTE BAILU
KAMMARADI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-78
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.V.SATISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RIPPONPETE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally
BANGALORE-01
signed by ...RESPONDENT
MALATESH (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
KC
Location: THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401
HIGH CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
COURT OF 28.02.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
KARNATAKA
SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGAR) IN
CRL.A.NO.10017/2016 AND JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2016
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
HOSANAGAR IN C.C.NO.176/2010 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 394, 324 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
CRL.RP No. 342 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri K.V.Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High
Court Government Pleader.
2. This Revision Petition is preferred by the accused who
suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven
days, in C.C.No.176/2010 dated 27.10.2016 on the file of the
Addl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Hosanagara, confirmed in Crl.A.No.10017/2016 dated
28.02.2017 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Shivamogga.
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal
of the present revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged stating that on
05.08.2009 at about 11.30 am when complainant was
proceeding to school by walk from Kukkalale Bus Stand,
accused came on motor bike and restrained the complainant
wrongfully and by showing the knife snatched the gold chain
and bag. When he was about to escape, complainant caught
hold of shirt collar of the accused and raised hue and cry for
help. At that juncture, one Umesh and Vinaya Kumar Sharma
came to be spot and caught hold of the accused on the spot.
In the incident, complainant sustained injury on her leg.
Accused pelted stones on said Umesh and Vinaya Kumar
Sharma in order to escape away from the place of incident, but
was unsuccessful.
4. Thereafter, accused was taken to the Police Station and a
case came to be registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 394 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After
conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
against the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
5. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Trial
Judge and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and
therefore, trial was held.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, 13
witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 13 on behalf of the
prosecution and placed on record 08 documentary evidence
which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 8 comprising of
complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, wound certificates,
photographs, first information report, Evaluation report by the
jeweler and the spot sketch. The prosecution also placed on
record 7 material objects as M.Os.1 to 7 comprising of gold
chain, knife, monkey cap, blazer, hand glouse, stone and
broken bangle pieces.
7. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses who
have supported the case of the prosecution did not yield any
positive material so as to disbelieve the version of the
prosecution.
8. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein,
accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
not offer any plausible explanation nor placed any written
statement on record as is contemplated under Section 313(4)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused failed to place any
defence evidence.
9. Subsequently, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties
and taking note of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled
with recovery of the material objects, took note of the wound
certificates of the complainant and the persons who had come
to the rescue of the complainant on the spot, convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and
324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused as
referred to supra.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal
before the District Court in Crl.A.No.10017/2016.
11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing
the records heard the parties in detail and noting the
overwhelming evidence placed on record by the prosecution,
dismissed the appeal of the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
12. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before
this Court in this revision petition.
13. Sri K.V.Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision
petition, vehemently contended that a false case has been
hoisted against the revision petitioner/ accused which has not
been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate as
well as the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, inasmuch
as, the so called gold chain was handed over to the
complainant in the police station itself and therefore, the very
recovery is doubtful and therefore sought to allow the revision
petition.
14. Learned counsel alternatively contended that in the event
this Court upholds the Order of conviction, considering the age
of the accused and the fact that there are no criminal
antecedents and conduct of the accused post the incident
alleged against him, the Court may consider the custody period
of 15 days already undergone by the accused during the period
of trial as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine
amount reasonably.
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
15. Per contra, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds including the
alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner by contending that an helpless lady was
attacked by the accused on a motorcycle. But for the alarm
raised by the lady and the timely intervention of Sri Umesh and
Vinaya Kumar Sharma, valuable property of the lady would
have been lost, so also, her life was in danger. Such a person
cannot be shown any leniency by this Court and sought to
dismiss the revision petition in toto.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
17. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly,
there is no previous enmity or animosity between the accused
and complainant, Umesh and Vinaya Kumar Sharma. As a
matter of fact, they have seen the accused for the first time at
the time of incident. Nobody would foist a false case against a
stranger unless there is some benefit out of foisting such a
false case. What is that reason for foisting a false case against
the accused is not even whispered by the accused either in
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or while
recording the accused statement.
18. Admittedly, Smt.Lakshmi is injured, so also persons who
came to the rescue also got injured as could be seen from the
wound certificates marked at Exs.P.4 and 5.
19. The gold chain said to have been snatched is seized at
the spot and the recovery panchanama and spot panchanama
is also established by the prosecution.
20. What prevented the accused to place his version about
the incident is not forthcoming on record so as to advance his
defence.
21. Under such circumstances, in the absence of proper
explanation being offered by the accused, learned Trial
Magistrate believed the version of the prosecution and taking
note of the documentary evidence and material objects placed
on record on behalf of the prosecution, rightly convicted the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and
324 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires no interference by
this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction.
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
22. Having said thus, as is contended on behalf of the
accused, accused is now aged 45 years and is a family person.
23. Before the incident or after the incident, no other criminal
antecedents are reported as against the accused. At the time
of trial, accused was in custody for 15 days.
24. Taking note of the fact that accused is eking out his
livelihood by working as a Manager in a small Hotel, enhancing
fine amount of Rs.50,000/- and treating the custody period of
15 days already undergone by the accused as the period of
imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
25. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 394 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, custody period of 15 days already
undergone by the accused is treated as the
period of imprisonment in modification of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45906
Order of the Trial Court confirmed by the
First Appellate Court, by enhancing the fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine
amount already imposed by the Trial Court.
(iii) Out of fine amount recovered, Rs.40,000/- is
ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1
and Rs.5,000/- each to P.Ws.2 and 3.
(iv) Time is granted to the accused to pay the
enhanced fine amount till 30th December
2024, failing which the accused shall
undergo sentence as ordered by the learned
Trial Magistrate.
(v) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this Order,
forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
