Karnataka High Court
Raghu @ Arun Kumar vs State By on 17 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.925 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHU @ ARUN KUMAR,
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKANNA COMPOUND,
BIDIRUMALE THOTA,
TUMAKURU-572101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
NEW EXTENSION POLICE, TUMAKURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
by DEVIKA M
BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., TUMAKURU
IN C.C.NO.102/2013 IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 454 AND 380 OF IPC AND THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY
THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU DATED 23.10.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.65/2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
CRL.RP No. 925 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.2 against the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with
Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year four months with
fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections
454 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC and the same is
confirmed in Crl.A.No.65/2018.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that accused Nos.1 and 2 on 29.09.2012 at 1.00 p.m. lurked
into the house of C.W.1 Dr. Niranjan situated on Gangothri road,
SIT layout, Tumkur Town by breaking open the back door to
commit an offence of theft. The accused persons after entering
into the house of the complainant got opened the door of
cupboard and iron almirah with the help of screw driver and
committed the theft of golden and silver articles worth of
Rs.4,51,000/-. Both the accused were apprehended by C.W.28
in Tumkur Rural Police in Crime No.199/2012 and recovered the
stolen articles on the basis of voluntary statement of the
accused persons. C.W.29 after completion of investigation has
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 and
thereafter the Court framed the charges against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 read with
Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner did not plead guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and
got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 15. The petitioner was
also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he did not
choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having
considered the evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6,
16 and other evidence of Investigating Officers, convicted and
sentenced accused No.2 and accused No.1 pleaded guilty before
the Trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision
petitioner filed Crl.A.No.65/2018 and the Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not
committed any error in passing such conviction and sentence
and the same is sustainable and it does not require any
interference.
4. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence
and also confirmation, the present revision petition is filed
before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that there are no eye-witnesses to
the alleged incident and the entire recovery is not proved.
Though the prosecution examined P.W.14 mahazar witness, his
evidence is not credible and the evidence of P.W.13 in no way
assist the case of the prosecution and there are inconsistent
evidence. The evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.12, who are the
mother and son, are relative witnesses and their evidence not
supports the case of the prosecution. Both the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court fails to consider the contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and committed an error in
convicting and sentencing and confirming the same and hence it
requires interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for
the respondent State would contend that the Trial Court has
taken note of the evidence of P.W.1, who is the owner of the
jewellery shop and P.W.6 victim, who lost the jewels and she
identified the jewels which were subjected to theft in her house.
Apart from that, recovery is also proved by examining P.W.16
and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16
corroborates with each other and the charges leveled against
the petitioner is proved and hence the Trial Court has not
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
committed any error and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation
of material available on record not committed any error and
hence it does not require interference of this Court by exercising
the revisional jurisdiction.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State
and also considering the material on record, the points that arise
for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Courts below committed an error
in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections 454
and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC and
whether this Court can exercise the revisional
jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that
the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court suffers from any infirmity, legality and
correctness?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and on
perusal of the material on record, this Court has already made it
clear with regard to the charges leveled against this petitioner.
This petitioner along with accused No.1 lurked into the house of
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
P.W.6 and committed the offence of theft by breaking open the
back door of the house. The prosecution mainly relies upon the
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.16. P.W.1 is the jewellery shop owner
with whom this petitioner along with accused No.1 went and
pledged the articles and P.W.1 identified this petitioner saying
that he came along with accused No.1. P.W.6 informed the
police about the loss of golden articles and also lodging of the
complaint and the Tumkur Police informed about tracing of the
stolen articles after three months of the incident and
immediately she went and identified the articles as per Ex.P.2
photographs. The police also drawn the mahazar on 01.10.2012
as per Ex.P.7 and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.6 and
theft taken place in their house. The prosecution also relies upon
the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.12 as well as the evidence of
P.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.16, who was the then CPI of
Tumkur, Rural Police, who arrested the accused persons and
recorded the voluntary statement as per Exs.P.13 and 14. The
accused also disclosed the place of concealment of golden and
silver articles, which was stolen from the house of the
complainant by leading the witness to the place where they
committed the theft and showed the house of the complainant
and spot panchanama was drawn in terms of Ex.P.12 and the
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
witnesses also speaks about the same. It is important to note
that P.W.16 took the accused to the place of concealment of
golden articles as per the directions of the accused and accused
No.2, who is the petitioner herein took the police and others to
his rented house situated at Bidirumele and produced 27 golden
and silver articles from the rice bag and the same was seized by
drawing panchanama in terms of Ex.P.5 since the accused was
apprehended in another case, wherein he revealed about
committing of theft in the house of P.W.6. Having re-assessed
the material on record, the Appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case and
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court
in paragraph No.21 observed that the findings of the Trial Court
is consisting of sound reasoning and it is not perverse and hence
the question of interference does not arise. The Trial Court also
taken note of the recovery of stolen articles and the prosecution
has also proved the spot mahazar Exs.P.2 and 7 by examining
P.Ws.7, 8 and 14 in corroboration with the evidence of the
Investigating Officer and relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2,
3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and confirmed the order.
9. Having considered the material available on record
and the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
I do not find any perversity in the findings of both the Courts in
considering the material on record, since P.W.16, who is the
Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and recovered
the golden articles at the instance of the petitioner and the
witnesses have deposed regarding recovery. When such being
the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court in re-appreciating the material on
record and this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction only
when the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not
considered the material on record in proper perspective and if
the order suffers from any legality and correctness. Hence, I do
not find any ground to admit the revision petition. The records
are also received and having gone through the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses, each witnesses evidence corroborates
with regard to act of this petitioner. The Trial Court also taken
note of other circumstances while convicting this petitioner since
accused No.1 admitted the guilt and having considered the other
material, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent
with each other. Though there are some minor discrepancies
elicited during the course of evidence, the same will not go to
the very root of the case of the prosecution and it is bound to
occur when the incident was taken long back and when the
NC: 2025:KHC:7014
witnesses were examined belatedly and the Court also cannot
expect the mathematical niceties while appreciating the
evidence on record and hence there are no grounds to interfere
with the order of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
Point No.(ii):
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
