Karnataka High Court
Karthik @ Poonekutti @Lambu @ Rowdy vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
CRL.A No. 911 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013
CRL.A No. 885 of 2013
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2013 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2013 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2013 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2013 (C)
IN CRL.A NO. 911/2013
BETWEEN:
KARTHIK @ POONEKUTTI @ LAMBU @ ROWDY
S/O PALANISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O BEHIND KUPPANNA GARAGE,
VIDYANAGAR CROSS, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 110
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE)
(APPELLANT AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O. DATED:11.06.2025)
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V
AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, BY CHIKKAJALA
POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
BANGALORE - 01
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED BY
THE V ADDITIONAL DIST. AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
CRL.A No. 911 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013
CRL.A No. 885 of 2013
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
S.C.NO.132/2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 864/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.M. MURALI,
S/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT, HUNASAMARANAHALLI
POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 064
(NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINATHA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE
BANGALORE - 560 064
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21/23.08.13 PASSED BY THE V ADDL.
DIST., AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.,
BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.132/12 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 400
OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO. 885/2013
BETWEEN:
MURALI
S/O RAJENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING BEHIND KUPPANNA
GARGE, VIDYANAGAR CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
CRL.A No. 911 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013
CRL.A No. 885 of 2013
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
JALA HOBLI - 562 110
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
(NORTH IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHARATH .B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CHIKKA JALA
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
NORTH TALUK - 562 110
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED
BY THE V ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN S.C.NO.132/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 896/2013
BETWEEN:
SRINIVASA @ SENA
SON OF LATE MUTTUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND HOSPITAL,
VIDHYANAGAR CROSS,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK, BNAGALORE-562157
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. TEJASWINI .V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHANKARAPPA .S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
CRL.A No. 911 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 864 of 2013
CRL.A No. 885 of 2013
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 21.08.2013 PASSED
BY THE V ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN S.C.NO.132/2012 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
399 AND 400 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant in Crl.A.No.911/2013 being accused No.1,
the appellant in Crl.A.No.896/2013 being accused No.2, the
appellant in Crl.A.No.885/2013 being accused No.3, and the
appellant in Crl.A.No.864/2013 being accused No.4 in
S.C.No.132/2012, on the file of the learned V Additional
Session Judge, Devanahalli, are impugning the Judgment of
Conviction dated 21.08.2013 and Order of Sentence dated
23.08.2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under
Sections 399 and 400 of IPC and sentencing to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 399
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5
years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 400 of IPC, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that,
on 18.09.2011 at 6:30 p.m, PW7 received credible information
that few persons have assembled in a gang, making
preparations to commit dacoity. Immediately, he rushed to the
spot along with his staff, found accused Nos.1 to 5 armed with
knife, clubs and chilli powder packets. PW7 satisfied himself
that, the accused were part of a gang, and they made
preparation for committing the dacoity, surrounded them and
caught hold of accused Nos.1 to 4, while accused No.5 escaped
and ran away.
3. It is the further contention of the prosecution that,
the knife in the custody of accused No.1, clubs in the hands of
accused Nos. 2 & 3 and 2 chili powder packets from accused
No.4 were recovered under the mahazar-Ex.P1. Accused Nos.1
to 4 were brought to the police station. PW7 produced report as
per Ex.P2, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered.
The Investigating Officer conducted investigation, filed charge
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 and since, accused No.5 was
absconding, a split-up case came to be filed against him and
committed the matter to the Sessions Court.
4. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court,
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution
examined PWs-1 to 7, got marked Ex.P1 to 3, identified MOs.1
to 4 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all
the incriminating materials available on record, but have not
led any evidence in support of their defence.
5. 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 accused Nos.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 400 of
IPC and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being
aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred
these appeals.
6. Heard Sri. P.B.Umesh, learned Amicus Curiae for
the appellant - accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.911/2013, Smt.
Tejaswini.V, learned counsel for Sri.Shankarappa.S, learned
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
counsel for the appellant- accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.896/2013,
Sri. Bharath.B, learned counsel for Sri. Subramanya.H.V,
learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.3 in
Crl.A.No.885/2013, Sri. Srinatha B.V, learned counsel for Sri.
Nanjunda Gowda.M.R, learned counsel for the appellant-
accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.864/2013 and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav,
learned Additional SPP for the respondent. Perused the
materials including the Trial Court records.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellants - accused
Nos.1 to 4 have made out a case to
interfere with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused
Nos.1 to 5, being part of the gang of dacoits made preparations
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
to commit dacoity and accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended
by PW7 with the help of his staff members and seized the
incriminating weapons as per MOs.1 to 4. Even though the
prosecution examined 7 witnesses including PWs.4 and 5 being
the independent mahazar witnesses to Ex.P1, both these
independent witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution, and they have turned hostile. PWs.1 to 3 are the
police constables working under PW7. PW6 is the SI, who
received the report - Ex.P2 from PW7 and registered the FIR as
per Ex.P3 and filed the charge sheet. PW7 is the person who is
said to have received the credible information, went to the
spot, apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4, seized MOs.1 to 4 and
submitted the report Ex.P2.
9. According to PWs. 1 and 2 they were informed by
PW7 that, there was a galata and therefore, they were required
to proceed to the spot. According to PW7, he had received
credible information that, there were 5 to 6 persons assembled,
armed with weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity and
therefore, he proceeded to the spot along with his staff. It is
also pertinent to note that the incident is said to have occurred
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
at 6.30 in the evening on 18.09.2011. Therefore, it was not as
if accused Nos. 1 to 4 have assembled in the dead night, armed
with weapons.
10. As per Ex.P1 - mahazar, the mobile hand sets were
recovered form the accused. The same are not part of the
charge sheet in the present case. The explanation given by
PW7 is that, the accused have referred to snatching of the
mobile handsets from two different persons and therefore,
separate criminal cases were registered against the accused
and the said mobile handsets seized in the present case under
Ex.P1 were transferred to the separate criminal cases which
were registered against them. But unfortunately, no scarp of
paper is produced in support of such contention and even PW7
has not given the details of the other criminal cases registered
against the accused for having snatched mobile handsets,
which they were in possession of.
11. It is also pertinent to note that, PW7 categorically
stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 are local residents. Under such
circumstances, they gathering at 6.30 pm at a place cannot be
treated as if they had assembled with an intention to be part of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
an unlawful assembly, or were part of unlawful assembly
making preparations to commit dacoity. Regarding seizure of
MOs.1 to 4, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs.1 to
3 and 7, who are the police officials. However, PWs.4 and 5
being the independent mahazar witnesses have not supported
the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to
them. It is also pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer
has not produced the case dairy to contend that he had
received credible information regarding assembly of accused
Nos. 1 to 4 by making preparations to commit dacoity.
Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that, it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of
PWs.1 to 3 and 7 to form an opinion that, the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 4 beyond
reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt will arise regarding case
made out by the prosecution against the accused and the same
is not expelled from placing cogent materials.
12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled for the benefit
of doubt.
13. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The
Trial Court has proceeded to accept the version of PWs.1 to 3
and 7 to convict the accused ignoring the facts discussed
above, which give rise to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be
interfered with.
14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The Judgment of Conviction dated 21.08.2013 and
Order of Sentence dated 23.08.2013 passed in
S.C.No.132/2012 on the file of the learned V Additional Session
Judge, Devanahalli, is hereby set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25204
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted for
the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 400 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties,
shall stand cancelled.
(v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused No.1 to 4,
is ordered to be refunded to them on due identification, after
appeal period is over.
Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this
judgment for information and for needful action.
The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:VS
