Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallikarjun @ Idli Mallaya S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
CRL.RP No. 200081 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200081 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MALLIKARJUN @ IDLI MALLYA
S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA UPPAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL WORK,
R/O. GAJIPUR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585 108.
2. SRI ROHIT S/O ARJUN MAHAGAONKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. GAJIPUR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585 108.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE S.H.O. STATION BAZAR POLICE,
KALABURAGI,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
CRL.RP No. 200081 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (438 BNSS, 2023) PRAYING
TO, ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION BY CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 17.08.2021, PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.40/2019 WHEREIN CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 16.03.2019, PASSED BY
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN
C.C.NO.4813/2014, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 392 OF IPC AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDERS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
Revision petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.4813/2014, on the file of learned Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi (for short 'Trial Court') are
impugning the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.03.2019, convicting them for the
offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to pay
fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.40/2019 dated 17.08.2021, on the file of learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (for
short 'First Appellate Court').
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, PW.1 as the
informant filed first information as per Ex.P1 with Station
Bazar police station, Kalaburagi against unknown persons
for having snatched the portion of her gold mangalsutra
on 22.04.2013 at 7.30 a.m. and committing robbery. The
FIR came to be registered and the investigation was
undertaken. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were
apprehended in Crime No.70/2014 of Brahampur police
station, Kalaburagi. MO.1, which is the portion of gold
mangalsutra was said to have been seized at the instance
of accused No.2. After investigation, the final report came
to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 392 of
IPC against accused No.1 and 2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence
and registered C.C.No.4813/2014. The accused have
appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to
11, got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and identified MO.1 in
support of its contention. The accused have denied all the
incriminating materials available on record, but they have
not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their
defence.
4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration
all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that
the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of
IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted
them as stated above.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have
preferred Criminal Appeal No.40/2019. The First Appellate
Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record,
confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
sentence passed by the Trial Court, by dismissing the
appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are
before this Court.
6. Heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned
counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Jamadar
Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the
First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities
and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative'
for the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
revision petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have
snatched the gold mangalsutra of PW.1 and thereby
committed robbery. It is pertinent to note that, initially
first information came to be filed by PW.1 against
unknown persons. It is stated that, these petitioners were
apprehended in Crime No.70/2014 of Brahampur police
station, Kalaburagi and portion of gold mangalsutra
belonging to PW.1 was seized from the custody of accused
No.2. During the investigation in Crime No.70/2014, the
accused are said to have revealed commission of robbery
in the present case and thereafter, further investigation
was undertaken and final report came to be filed. Thus,
the prosecution is strangely relying on the recovery of
MO.1 from the custody of accused No.2 to prove the guilt
of the revision petitioners.
9. The prosecution examined PW.3 and PW.4
being the seizure mahazar witnesses to Ex.P3, but both
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
these witnesses have turned hostile and have not
supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the
seizure mahazar - Ex.P3 was drawn on 24.04.2014 i.e.,
after lapse of more than a year from the date of
commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, the
contention of the prosecution that the broken gold
mangalsutra belonging to PW.1 was seized from the
custody of accused No.2, cannot be believed unless there
is corroboration to the same.
10. Ex.P3 is the property seizure memo that refers
to 20 grams of mangalsutra and 30 grams of mangalsutra
seized on 24.04.2014 between 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.
from Rohit - accused No.2. When both PW.3 and PW.4,
who are the witnesses to seizure mahazar, have not
supported the case of the prosecution, the version of the
prosecution in that regard cannot be believed. It is
pertinent to note that, PW.1 had not stated that she had
identified the accused at the time of commission of the
offence. The Investigating Officer has not conducted the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
Test Identification Parade to confirm that he is proceeding
in the right direction while apprehending the accused in
the present case. PW.1 has categorically stated that, it
was the police who have shown the accused to him in the
police station and stated that they are the persons who
have committed the robbery. There are no other
eyewitnesses to the incident who have identified the
accused. Under such circumstances, I do not find any
satisfactory material to connect the accused to the offence
in question. Therefore, benefit of doubt will have to be
extended to the accused and they are entitled to be
acquitted.
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both the
Courts have proceeded to convict the accused without
referring to any facts and circumstances and blindly relied
on the version of the prosecution even though PW.1 has
never identified the accused. PW.3 and PW.4, who are the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
witnesses to Ex.P3, have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Under such circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial
Court as well as First Appellate Court are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I. The revision petition is allowed.
II. The impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi dated 16.03.2019 in
C.C.No.4813/2014, confirmed in Criminal Appeal
No.40/2019 dated 17.08.2021, on the file of
learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kalaburagi, is hereby set aside.
III. Consequently, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2
are acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 392 of IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4987
HC-KAR
IV. Bail bond of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2
and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled.
V. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is ordered to be
refunded to them on due identification.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along
with copy of this judgment for information and for needful
action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
