Karnataka High Court
Mahendra @ Mahendrashetty vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
CRL.A No. 1162 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1182 of 2012
CRL.A No. 1254 of 2012
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2012 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1182 OF 2012 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1254 OF 2012 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1168 OF 2013 (C)
IN CRL.A NO. 1162/2012
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH,
SON OF KALAIAH,
VOKKALIGA, AGRICULTURIST
KAGGERE VILLAGE, YEDIYUR
HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
(SPLIT UP CASE SC 66/2012)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B
G AND:
Location: High
Court of STATE BY AMRUTHUR
Karnataka POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN S.C. NO.239/2010 &
S.C.NO.66/2012 (SPLIT UP CASE ACCUSED NO.8), DATED 31/8/2012
PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-II, TUMKUR - CONVICTING THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
CRL.A No. 1162 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1182 of 2012
CRL.A No. 1254 of 2012
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
APPELLANT/ACCUSED-8 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.363 & 395
R/W.SEC.149 OF IPC. AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 1182/2012
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN @ MENTAL PRAVEEN
S/O RAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF THAVARADEVARAKOPPALU
VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201,
HASSAN DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN .B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY AMRUTHUR POLICE,
TUMKUR - 572 101,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN S.C. NO.239/2010 DATED
31/8/2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-II, TUMKUR - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED-7 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 363 & 395
R/W.SEC.149 OF IPC. AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 1254/2012
BETWEEN:
1. MAHENDRA @ MAHENDRASHETTY,
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/OF ELECTORNICS
CITY NO.6, REDDY BUILDING,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE - 560 030
2. KISHOR @ KISHORKUMAR,
S/O J.C. MOHAN,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
CRL.A No. 1162 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1182 of 2012
CRL.A No. 1254 of 2012
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
R/OF NO.21, 6TH A CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA,
RPC LYAOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 040
3. HEMANTHKUMAR @ HAREESH
@ KUDUKA HEMANTH,
S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
R/OF NO.229, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
8TH CROSS, NEAR KAVITHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY AMRUTHUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DT.31.08.2012/06.09.2012
PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC-II, TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.239/2010-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 363 AND 395 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC. AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO. 1168/2013
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESH @ SODA RAJESH
S/O NIRANJAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/OF NO. 2604,
AMRUTHAHALLY,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
CRL.A No. 1162 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1182 of 2012
CRL.A No. 1254 of 2012
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
SHANKARANAGAR POST,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
TIPTUR TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT
NOW R/AT G.K. KRISHNAPPA
COMPOUND, ARALIKATTE ROAD
AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 097
2. K.V. CHARAN,
S/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.170, 4TH CROSS,
MADAKARINAYANA ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURA,
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR,
BANGALORE. PERMANENT
R/OF KADASATTAHALLI,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN .B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY AMRUTHUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DT.31.08.2012/06.09.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC-II, TUMKUR IN
S.C.NO.239/2010-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.4
AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 AND 395 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
AND ETC.,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
CRL.A No. 1162 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 1182 of 2012
CRL.A No. 1254 of 2012
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crl.A.No.1254/2012,
the appellant-accused No.5 in Crl.A.No.1168/2013, the
appellant-accused No.7 in Crl.A.No.1182/2012, in
S.C.No.239/2010 and the appellant - accused No.8 in
Crl.A.No.1162/2012 in S.C.No.66/2012 (split-up case), on the
file of the Fast Track Court-II at Tumakuru, are impugning the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.08.2012, convicting them for the offences punishable under
Sections 363 and 395 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentencing
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years
with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 363 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 395 of IPC, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that,
accused No.1 to 9 forming themselves into an unlawful
assembly, with the common object of committing the offence,
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
waylaid the Scorpio car on 03.11.2009 at 09.30 p.m. in which,
the informant was proceeding. The accused have also boarded
the Scorpio car, tied the limbs of PW-12 and kidnapped him.
Thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under
Section 363 r/w Section 149 of IPC. It is the further contention
of the prosecution that the accused, who have kidnapped PW-
12, robbed cash of Rs.51,000/-, two mobile phones which were
with him, intimidated him with dire consequences and made
him to inform his family members to hand over the cheque
book and passbook. After getting the signatures of PW-12 on
the cheque leaves, they have withdrawn an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- from Vijaya Bank, Nagamangala branch.
Thereby, the accused have committed the offence punishable
under Section 395 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the first information-Ex.P7 lodged
by the informant - PW-12, the FIR as per Ex.P34 came to be
registered. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
Investigating Officer in Crime No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram Police
Station, Mysore had apprehended accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
and during investigation, he came to know that the very same
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
accused have committed the offences in the present case
registered in Crime No.165/2009 of Amruthuru Police Station,
Tumakuru. The incriminating materials that were seized in
Crime No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram Police Station, Mysore which
were pertaining to this case were handed over to the
Investigating Officer in the present case. The Investigating
Officer secured the presence of the accused under body
warrant, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet
for the above said offences.
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence. The learned Sessions Judge on committal, summoned
the accused. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court,
and pleaded not guilty for the offence and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution examined PWs-1 to 26, got marked Ex.P1 to 44,
identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused
have denied all the incriminating materials available on record
in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but
have not led any evidence in support of their defence.
5. The Trial Court after taking the consideration are
these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of accused
Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 for the offences punishable under Sections
363, 395 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them as stated
above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 to 5, 7 and
8 have preferred these appeals. However, during the pendency
of Crl.A.No.1168 of 2013, appellant- accused No.4 died and the
appeal preferred by him was dismissed as abated vide order
dated 13.02.2025.
6. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are before
this Court, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is stated that accused
Nos.6 and 9 were absconding. Therefore, a split up charge
sheet came to be filed against them.
7. Heard Sri. Nithin Gowda K.C, learned counsel for
Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants -
accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crl.A.No.1254/2012, Sri. Chethan.B,
learned counsel for the appellant-accused Nos.5 and 7 in
Crl.A.No.1168/2013 and Crl.A.No.1182/2012 respectively, Mis.
Tejaswini V, learned counsel for Sri. S Shankarappa, learned
counsel for the appellant-accused No.8 in Crl.A.No.1162/2012
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the
Trial Court records.
8. 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 3, 5, 7 and 8 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
9. It is the contention of the prosecution that the
accused have waylaid the Scorpio car in which, the informant
PW-12 was proceeding on 03.11.2009 and after getting into the
car, they have tied the limbs of the informant, kidnapped him,
robbed the cash, mobile phones, etc. They have also made the
informant to talk to his family members, insisting to hand over
passbook and cheque book to one of the accused, and after
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
securing the cheque book and passbook, they made the
informant to sign on the cheque leaves. By utilizing one of the
cheque leaf, cash of Rs.10,00,000/- was drawn from Vijaya
Bank, Pandavapura Branch. Thereby, they have committed the
offence as stated above.
10. It is the further contention of the prosecution that
the informant was found inside the car with his limbs tied. After
noticing him, the information has reached to the police who
were on beat duty, from Mandya Rural Police Station, they
came to the spot and released the informant. Later, he was
directed to approach the jurisdictional police station, i.e.,
Amruthuru police station, Tumakuru and accordingly, the
informant lodged the first information on the very same day
against 5 unknown accused persons.
11. To prove its contention, the prosecution has
examined PW-1 - the Bank Manager of Vijaya Bank,
Nagamangala Branch. As per the case made out by the
prosecution, accused No.4 came to Vijaya Bank, Nagamangala
branch with the cheque leaf signed by PW-12, where he was
having an account. PW-1 being the manager of the bank found
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
that the branch had no sufficient cash to honour the cheque of
Rs.10,00,000/-, he made internal arrangement to get the
required cash from Pandavapura Branch, Mandya and handed
over the cash to one Vikas, who was later identified as accused
No.4. Witness stated that he had obtained the signature of the
said Vikas on the cheque-Ex.P1 presented by him. Witness
further stated that, on the very same day at 05.45p.m. Mandya
Rural Police visited the branch, and informed that the account
holder Gangappa was kidnapped and asked not to honour the
cheque. But by that time, the cash of Rs.10,00,000/- was
already handed over to Vikas. Witness stated that, about a
month thereafter, the police came to the bank, enquired him
and took his statement etc., Witness stated that the bank was
not having CCTV cameras to identify the person who had taken
the cash.
12. PW-2 is the Assistant Manager of Vijaya Bank,
Nagamangala branch, who had also seen the person named as
Vikas, and had taken the cash of the Rs.10,00,000/-. Witness
has stated that since sufficient cash was not available in the
branch, as per the instruction given by PW-1, he proceeded to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Vijaya Bank, Pandavapura branch in the car which was driven
by accused No.5, and the cash was obtained from there. He
also deposed on par with PW-1.
13. PW-3 is also a bank official working as an Attender
in Vijaya Bank, Nagamangala branch. He states that as per the
instructions given by PW-1, he along with PW-2 and accused
Nos.4 and 5 went to Vijaya Bank, Pandavapura branch to get
cash of Rs.10,00,000/-.
14. PW-4 is the cashier of Vijaya Bank of Nagamangala
branch, who spoke about presentation of the cheque belonging
to the informant, and the shortage of cash to honour the
cheque. He also stated that, as per the instructions by PW-1,
they arranged to honour the cheque by getting the cash from
Pandavapura branch.
15. PW-5 is the son of the complainant and the
mahazar witness to Ex.P2-the spot mahazar drawn near the
dam from where the informant was kidnapped. PW-6 is the
other mahazar witness to Ex.P2. But during cross examination
he stated that he signed Ex.P2 in the police station.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
16. PWs-7 and 8 are the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P3
and P4. Ex.P3 is the seizure mahazar, where-under MOs 1 and
2 were seized at the instance of PW-1, and Ex.P4 is the spot
mahazar drawn at the place where the informant was dropped
after he was kidnapped and robbed. Both these witnesses have
not supported the case of prosecution and they were treated
hostile.
17. PW-9 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P5 - the seizure
mahazar, whereunder, the Indica car bearing registration
No.KA-04-MN-45 was recovered at the instance of accused
No.3 along with the copy of the insurance policy for the car and
the cheque belonging to PW-12. This witness has also not
supported the case of the prosecution and he was treated
hostile.
18. PW-10 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P6, the seizure
mahazar which was drawn in Crime No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram
Police Station, alleging that the cheque book, RC, driving
license relating to PW-12 were seized at the instance of
accused No.5 along with an Alto car. This witness has not fully
supported the case of the prosecution. Even though, an Alto car
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
was seized under Ex.P6. He states that, there was an Indica car
bearing registration No.KA-04-MN-45 seized in his presence. He
states that the cars were parked by the side of the road, but
fails to identify any of the accused.
19. PW-11 is the police constable attached to Mandya
Rural Police Station, who deposed that, he received credible
information regarding PW-12 who was found with his limbs tied
in the car. Accordingly, he went and released him, took him to
Mandya Rural Police Station and then to Amruthuru Police
Station. Even though, this witness names accused No.1 as the
person who committed the offence, it is pertinent to note that
the FIR was against unknown persons and there is no reason as
to why accused No.1 is not named in the first information.
20. PW-12 is the material witness to the case of
prosecution. He is the victim and the informant. Witness stated
regarding the incident that the accused have waylaid his car,
tied his limbs, robbed cash of Rs.51,000/- and the watch. He
also stated that the accused made him to talk to his family
members asking for cheque book and pass book. As per the
instructions of the accused, he informed PW-13, who was in his
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
house, that his grandson is coming to collect the cheque book
and pass book. Witness has stated that the accused have made
him to sign on the cheque leaves and by making use of the
cheque leaf, they managed to withdraw the amount from his
bank account. Witness stated that he had seen the accused
before the Court in the police station and it was the police who
informed him that it was those accused, who committed the
offence. Witness stated that, all the accused were wearing
masks at the time of commission of the offence and that is why
he could not identify them.
21. PW-13 is the inmate of the house of the informant
PW-12, who stated that the informant had talked to her over
phone asking for cheque book and passbook, and also the cash
which was kept in the house. Accordingly, she handed over
cash of Rs.1,49,000/- along with cheque book and pass book
on 03.11.2009 at 05.30 p.m. But, she could not identify the
accused before the Court who had come to her house.
22. PW-14 is also the inmate of the house of the
informant PW-12, who deposed that a person by name Vivek
had come to the house, said to be on the instructions by PW-12
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
and took cheque book, pass book and cash of Rs.1,49,000/-.
Even this witness could not identify the accused before the
Court who had come to the house and collected the documents
and the cash. Witness stated that it was the police who showed
the accused in the police station and informed that, it was they
who committed the offence.
23. PW-15 is one of the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P2.
i.e. the spot mahazar drawn at the place from where the
informant was kidnapped. Even though he supported the case
of the prosecution regarding drawing of Ex.P2, during cross
examination, he pleaded his ignorance about the contents of
the documents and stated that he had only affixed his signature
over the same.
24. PW-16 is the spot mahazar witness to Ex.14 drawn
at the place shown by accused No.1 in Crime No.122/2009 of
V.V.Puram police station said to be the place from where they
had kidnapped the informant. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution.
25. PW-17 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P15, where
under one of the cheque leaves belonging to PW-12 was said to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
have been seized at the instance of PW-7 in Crime
No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram police station. This witness has also
not supported the case of the prosecution.
26. PWs-18, 19 and 20 are the police officials, who are
said to have taken accused No.2, 5 and 7 respectively to
custody.
27. PW-21 is the Sub-Inspector of police who
apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 6. The witness also states
about Ex.P14, the spot mahazar drawn near Markonahally dam,
shown by accused No.1 and also states that cash of
Rs.60,000/- was found with accused No.1. However, he states
that he had not drawn any mahazar in that regard.
28. PW-22 is also the police official, who speaks about
apprehension of accused No.1 to 6. PW-23 refers to taking into
custody of accused No.6.
29. PW-24 is the Investigating Officer in Crime
No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram Police Station. He speaks about the
investigation undertaken by him in the said crime number and
also states apprehension of the accused, recording of their
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
voluntary statements, drawing of the mahazar as per Exs.P30
and 31.
30. PW-25 is the police officer, who registered the FIR
and also has drawn Ex.P5-the seizure mahazar, seizing the
Indica car at the instance of accused No.3.
31. PW-26 is the Investigating Officer in the present
case, who speaks about the investigation undertaken by him.
During cross examination, he categorically admits that no test
identification parade was conducted through the Tahsildar for
the purpose of identifying the accused.
32. It is the contention of the prosecution that PW-12
was kidnapped by the accused while he was proceeding in his
Scorpio car, and they made him to call the inmates of his house
to hand over the cheque book, pass book etc., and to sign on
the cheque leaves. It is the further contention of the
prosecution that, by making use of one cheque leaves and the
signature of PW-12, accused Nos.4 and 5 gone to Vijaya Bank,
Nagamangala branch for encashing the cheques. When there
were no sufficient funds in the bank to honour the cheque, the
accused were taken by the bank officials- PWs-2 and 3 to
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Pandavapura branch, to withdraw Rs.10,00,000/- and handed
over the same to accused No.4.
33. PW-12 being the victim said to have seen all the
accused at the time of commission of the offence. PWs.1 to 4
being the bank officials have seen the accused who have visited
the bank with the cheque leaves signed by PW-12. PWs-13 and
14 being the inmates of the house of PW-12 have seen accused
No.4 when he had came to get the cheque book and pass book
as per the instructions by PW-12.
34. Admittedly, FIR came to be registered against
unknown persons. It is not in dispute that, none of the accused
were familiar to PW-12 or to any other witnesses who have
seen them. The accused were apprehended in Crime
No.122/2009 of V.V.Puram police station by PW-24 who was
the Investigating Officer in the said case. During investigation,
he came to know that the accused were involved in the present
case as well. Therefore, he handed over the mahazers which
were drawn by him in Crime No.122/2009. None of the
witnesses to the mahazers drawn in Crime No.122/2009 were
examined before the Trial Court. Even though, the presence of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the accused were taken in the present case by getting the body
warrant issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate, he has not
thought it fit to hold the test identification parade for the
purpose of identifying the accused by the witnesses, who have
seen them while committing the offence. When it is the specific
contention of the prosecution that the accused were strangers
and they were not known to the informant or any other
witnesses, and when the FIR was registered against unknown
persons, it is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to
conduct test identification parade to enable the witnesses to
identify them, and to have confirmation that the investigation is
going on a right direction, which probabilizes the contention
taken by the prosecution to some extent.
35. In the present case, the material witnesses have
never identified any of the accused. Even if they refer to some
of the accused, they specifically stated that it was the police
who have stated that it was they who have committed the
offence. PW-12 has gone to the extent of deposing before the
Trial Court that all the accused were wearing masks and
therefore, he could not identify them. These circumstances are
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is nothing to
connect the accused to the offence in question. Even if the
glaring inconsistencies in seizing of the incriminating materials
at the instance of accused are to be ignored, and the evidence
given by the witnesses regarding material particulars are taken
into consideration, there is absolutely nothing to connect the
accused to the offence in question by identifying them at least
by the informant - PW-12 and other witnesses who have seen
the accused while committing the offence. Under such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, it was a futile attempt
on the part of the prosecution to lead voluminous evidence
before the Trial Court. By no stretch of imagination it could be
held that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Only on suspicion,
however strong it may be, the accused cannot be convicted by
holding proof of the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Under such
circumstances, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt
and they are to be acquitted.
36. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Trial Court, ignoring the fact that no test identification parade
was held, and none of the witnesses have identified the
accused specifically to speak about their overt act, proceeded
to convict the accused, without any basis. 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.
37. Before parting with the matter, I have to place on
record the able assistance given by the young advocate Sri.
Nithin Gowda K.C, who argued the appeals for the appellants.
38. 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 and order of Sentence
dated 31.08.2012 passed in S.C.No.239/2010
(S.C.No.66/2012-split up case), on the file of Fast Track Court-
II at Tumakuru, is hereby set aside.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21336
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8, who
are the appellants herein, are acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 363 and 395 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties,
shall stand cancelled.
Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused No.1 to 3, 5, 7
and 8, 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.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
