Karnataka High Court
Duggesh Alias Dugga S/O. Hanumantappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100082 OF 2023
[397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))]
BETWEEN:
DUGGESH @ DUGGA
S/O. HANUMANTAPPA DAVANGERE @ TALAWAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. DAVANGERE, NOW AT HONDADA ONI,
HALEPTE, BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
BY PSI BYADAGI POLICE STATION,
BYADAGI-581106.
Digitally
... RESPONDENT
signed by
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
E Date:
2025.01.21
14:32:09
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 AND
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE
SENTENCE ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2019 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BYADAGI IN CC NO.20/2010 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/SEC.457 AND 380 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST
HIM., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This revision petition is filed by accused no.3 (petitioner)
challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.10.2020 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri
sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.no.23/2019 confirming judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2019 passed
by JMFC Court, Byadagi in C.C.No.20/2010 for offences
punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code
('IPC' for short).
2. Sri Shivasai M.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that impugned judgments and orders by both Courts
were unsustainable and contrary to law. It was submitted case
of prosecution was that, a complaint was filed by Basappa
Doddarudrappa Malenahalli on 19.07.2009 that complainant
had two shops i.e., one Muppanna Hoolihalli and Mrutyunjaya
Commission Agencies APMC yard. That at night on 18.07.2009
there was trespass by unknown persons by breaking open door
of shops with intention to commit theft. Computer and its
accessories along with UPS (battery) etc., worth Rs.24,000/-
were stolen. Based on same, Byadagi Police registered Crime
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
no.107/2009 and on completion of investigation, filed charge
sheet against four accused for offences under sections 457 and
380 of IPC.
3. Petitioner/accused no.3 was apprehended on
01.01.2010. Even, accused no.1 was arrested, but accused
no.2 and 4 absconded. Thereafter charge sheet was split up
against absconding accused and proceeded with trial against
accused no.1 and 3 only.
4. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses and got marked
Exs.P1 to P.18. It was submitted PWs.8 to 12 turned hostile.
Despite same, trial Court proceeded to convict petitioner along
with accused no.1 for both offences and passed judgment of
conviction and order of sentence. It was further submitted both
petitioner as well as accused no.1 had attended Court on all
dates of hearing and cooperated. While accused no.1 was in
custody for a total period of 2 years 14 days, petitioner was in
custody for 3 months 3 days. Petitioner did not have any
criminal antecedents and he was aged 33 years with
dependents in family. Without appreciation of same, trial Court
convicted him imposing harsh sentence of simple imprisonment
for a period of 1 year 6 months on each of offences and also
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each and further sentence for 3
months simple imprisonment in case failure to pay fine amount.
5. It was contended there was time gap of about 6
months for arresting petitioner from date of recovery.
Prosecution depended on deposition of PW.9 to establish
recovery of stolen items from petitioner. However, PW.9 had
deposed that she was not aware when police visited her house
and recovered stolen articles.
6. It was contended such time gap would give scope
for false implication of petitioner and substantiate case for
extension of benefit of doubt. It was further submitted entire
case of prosecution depended on two panchanamas namely
Exs.P.9 and P.10. In view of PWs.8 to P.12 turning hostile,
same could not be held to be proved beyond reasonable debt.
Consequently, petitioner was entitled to be acquitted. It was
submitted there was no direct evidence implicating petitioner
and even order on sentence was harsh and excessive. On said
ground sought for allowing revision petition.
7. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath learned High Court
Government Pleader on other hand opposes petition. It was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
submitted while Ex.P.9 - panchanama was supported by PWs.4
and 6, Ex.P.10 - panchanama was supported by PWs.5 and 7
respectively, in addition to deposition of PW.2, 4 to 7 and 13 to
16, 18 and 19. Both Courts on due appreciation of same had
passed judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
8. It was submitted after passing judgment of
conviction, trial Court had given opportunity to petitioner to
have his say on sentence and all grounds urged insofar as
sentence were duly considered. It was submitted, maximum
punishment for offence under Section 457 was for 14 years and
7 years in case of offence under Section 380 of IPC. Trial Court
convicted both petitioner as well as accused no.1 for said
offences and imposed reformative and proportionate sentence
of simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months
only. Therefore there was no scope for interference.
9. Heard learned counsel and perused record.
10. From above, it is seen this revision petition is by
accused no.3 questioning judgment of conviction and order on
sentence. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported
in (2012) 9 SCC 460, scope for interference in revision would
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
be extremely limited normally only to questions of law and not
finding of fact. The first ground urged namely time gap of 6
months for arrest after recovery, records reveal date of incident
as 18.07.2009, complaint filed on next day i.e., 19.07.2009,
recovery of stolen articles by drawing panchanamas at Exs.P.9
and P.10 respectively on 01.01.2010 and arrest of petitioner on
same day. Therefore there would be no substance in
petitioner's contention that there was time gap of more than 6
months for arresting petitioner after recovery.
11. Insofar as contention that PWs.8 to 12 turned
hostile and therefore judgment of conviction was without
sufficient basis, perusal of judgment passed by trial Court as
well as Appellate Court would reveal, prosecution case was
supported by PWs.1, 4 to 7, 13 to 16, 18 and 19.
12. While it may be that there is no direct evidence
against petitioner, recovery of stolen articles from house of
petitioner would be a strong circumstantial evidence. Recovery
is by drawing Exs.P.9 and 10 - panchanamas. As noted by both
Courts, PWs.4 and 6 supported Ex.P.9 - panchanama, while
PWs.5 and 7 supported Ex.P.10 - panchanama. Therefore there
NC: 2025:KHC-D:877
would be no substance in contention that judgment of
conviction passed by both Courts suffered from any perversity.
13. Insofar as quantum of sentence, while passing
order on sentence, trial Court has taken note of fact that both
petitioner as well as accused no.1 had maintained good conduct
and attended Court on all dates of hearing. It also considered
their status with family having old aged parents, wife and
children etc. When offence under Section 457 of IPC carries
maximum period of sentence at 14 years and Section 380 of
IPC at 7 years, imposition of sentence of simple imprisonment
for a period of 1 year and 6 months cannot be stated to be
harsh or excessive. It is also relevant to note that no ground
against sentence appears to have been urged in appeal before
Appellate Court.
Hence no ground to interfere, revision petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM,CLK
