Karnataka High Court

Manja @ Manjunath vs The State By Yelawala Police on 4 November, 2025

                         -1-
                                    CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
                                                      c/w
                                    CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
     DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1818 of 2016 (C)
                       C/W
        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2015 (C)


IN CRL. APPEAL NO.1818 OF 2016


BETWEEN:


1.     INDRA
       S/O LATE MUTHU
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE,
       HUNSUR TALUK,
       MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302


2.     KHADAL @ RAMA
       S/O RAVI @ LAL MASAB
       ABED ABOUT 22 YEARS
       R/A SHANKARAPURA HADI,
       HUNSUR TALUK,
       MYSORE DISTRICT - 577 302.


3.     BANDOOS @ BANDU
       S/O DR. BABU
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
       R/A HAKKIPIKKI CAMP
       GOUTHAMNAGAR
                               -2-
                                    CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
                                                      c/w
                                    CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015



        CHIKKAMATTI VILLAGE
        SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)


AND:


THE STATE BY YELAWALA POLICE,
MYSORE
REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)


     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTECNE DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. S.J.,
MYSURU      IN     SC.NO.212/2013     CONVICTING      THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 400 AND
402 OF IPC.


CRL. APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2015
BETWEEN:


1.      MANJA @ MANJUNATH
        S/O LATE BABU
        AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
        R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE,
        HUNSUR TALUK,
        MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302.
                               -3-
                                     CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
                                                       c/w
                                     CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015



2.       MANNA
         S/O LATE MUTTHU
         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
         R/A 1ST PAKSHIRAJAPURA VILLAGE
         HUNSUR TALUK,
         MYSORE DISTRICT -577 302.
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:


THE STATE BY YELAWALA POLICE,
MYSORE
REP. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/C/O DATED: 15.10.2025]


     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTECNE DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. S.J.,
MYSURU      IN     SC.NO.212/2013     CONVICTING      THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 400 AND
402 OF IPC.


     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                -4-
                                        CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016
                                                          c/w
                                        CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015


                        CAV JUDGMENT

Both appeals arise out of Judgment of conviction and

order on Sentence passed in Sessions Case No.212 of 2013

dated 01st October 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions

Judge, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court"). Accused 2, 3, and 4

have filed Criminal Appeal No.1818 of 2016 and accused 1 and

5 have filed Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these

appeals are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to these appeals are that on

4/5th February, 2023 during midnight, at about 11:30 pm,

accused 1 to 6 along with absconded accused No.7, have

assembled with deadly weapons with an intention to make

preparation to commit dacoit of Friends Filling Station (Petrol

Bunk) situate near RMP Factory Cross, Mysuru-Hunsur Main

Road and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections

399, 400 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge-

sheet, case was registered in CC No.278 of 2013 and the same

was committed to Court of Sessions. After committal to

Sessions Court, case came to be registered in SC No.212 of

2013.

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

4. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed

Charges against accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable

under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. The

same was read over and explained to the accused. Having

understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has

examined 8 witnesses as PWs1 to 8, marked eight documents

as Exhibit P1 to P8 and 7 Material Objects as per MO1 to 7. On

closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused

under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.

Accused have totally denied evidence of prosecution witnesses

appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any

defence evidence on their behalf. However, during the course

of cross-examination of PW2, Exhibits D1, 1(a) and 1(b) were

marked.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court convicted the accused 1 to 6 for offences punishable

under Sections 399, 400, 402 of Indian Penal Code and passed

sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of

conviction and order on sentence, appellants have preferred

these appeals.

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

6. Sri Lethif, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants in both the appeals, would submit that during the

pendency of the appeal, appellant No.3-Deepak in Criminal

Appeal No.1227 of 2015 who is accused No.6, has expired and

the absconding accused No.7 has also expired. The learned

counsel would submit that the Judgment of conviction and order

on sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal,

invalid, contrary to law and facts. The prosecution is guilty of

suppressing material evidence and has not come to the Court

with true version of incident. PWs3 & 4 are the eye-witnesses

to the alleged incident. They have failed to identify the

appellants. PWs5 & 7 who are witnesses to seizure mahazar-

Exhibit P7, have not supported the case of prosecution. The

evidence of PWs1, 6 & 8, are Police Official witnesses and their

evidence are not corroborated with any of the independent

witnesses. There are material contradictions in the case of

prosecution. It is submitted that Exhibit P1 reveals that the

complainant-T. Shivakumar, Police Inspector has received the

information at 11.30 pm on 04th February, 2013 that about 6 to

7 persons were suspiciously moving near petrol bunk, but the

same is not entered in the General Diary. First Information

Report-Exhibit P8 reveals that in General Diary, the time is

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

shown as 3.00 am. Though they received the information

regarding movement of six to seven persons near the petrol

bunk in a suspicious manner, the same is not entered in the

General Diary. On the contrary, they have arrested the accused

on 05th February 2013 at 00.10 hours and have conducted

seizure mahazar as per Exhibit P2 between 00.30 and 02.00 am

and seized the material objects. After seizure of properties and

arrest of the accused, the investigating officer has registered

the case against the accused in Crime No.17 of 2013 on 05th

February, 2013 and submitted First Information Report to the

Court on the same day at 3:25 pm. The complainant, who

himself has lodged the complaint, has arrested the accused

which is not permissible under law. The learned counsel submit

that the police have filed charge-sheet against the accused for

the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 302 of Indian

Penal Code in SC No.215 of 2013 before the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, in which accused were acquitted on

29th January, 2019. As against this, State has not preferred

any appeal. He would further submit that the petrol bunk

employees have not supported the case of prosecution. Since

the complainant himself has investigated the crime, the

credibility of investigation in the case is doubtful. Complainant

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

is the higher officer. In the case on hand, PW1 has lodged the

complaint and Yelawala police have registered the case. When

Yelawala Police have registered the case, the Station House

Officer of Yelawala Police has to investigate the case. Instead,

the complainant himself has investigated the case, which is not

sustainable. The evidence of PW2 & PW7 reveals that they are

stock witnesses and have deposed only at the instance of the

Police. PW3 & PW4 are employees of Petrol Bunk. Only after

the arrest, Police have shown the accused and prior to that they

have not seen the accused. They have also been treated as

partly hostile witness. To substantiate his submissions, he has

relied on the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of JASBIR

SINGH @ JAWARI @ JABBAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

reported in (2015)5 SCC 762.

7. As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court

Government Pleader, submit that the trial Court has properly

appreciated evidence and record in accordance with law and

facts and there is no ground for interference in these appeals.

Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

8. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

materials placed on record, the point that would arise for

consideration in these appeals is:

"Whether the appellants have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, passed by the trial Court?"

9. Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is

necessary to mention here as to the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of JASBIR SINGH (supra). In the

said judgment, at paragraphs 11 to 13, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

"11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we are of the view that none of the charge in the present case, against the appellant, can be said to have been proved beyond Page 8 of 10 reasonable doubt. In this connection, we would like to quote following observations of the High Court, made in the impugned, after re-appreciating the evidence: -

"The statement of ASI Sube Singh and H.C. Ram Singh cannot be believed to the effect that they had over heard the conversation of the accused, details of which are given above to show that the accused were discussing their plan in detail to commit dacoity on the liquor shop, situated at Meerut Road, Karnal. It is

- 10 -

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

apparently exaggeration and padding on the part of Investigating Officer."

12. Strangely, even after observing as above, the High Court has believed the prosecution story in respect of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. The High Court has erred in law in not taking note of the following facts apparent from the evidence on record: -

(i) In a day light incident at 1.20 p.m. within the limits of City Police Station, Karnal, there is no public or any other independent witness of the arrest of the appellant along with other accused from the place of incident nor that of the alleged recovery of fire arm said to have been made from two of them.

(It is not a case where arrest or recovery has been made in the presence of any Gazetted Officer.)

ii) Complainant (PW-6) has himself investigated the crime, as such, the credibility of the investigation is also doubtful in the present case, particularly, for the reason that except the police constables, who are subordinate to him, there is no other witness to the incident.

(iii) It is not natural that the six accused, four of whom were armed with deadly weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police personnel before they are apprehended by the police.

(iv) It is strange that all the accused were wearing blue shirts, as if there was a uniform provided to them.

- 11 -

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

(v) It is hard to believe that the appellant and three others did not try to run away as at the time of the noon they must have easily noticed from a considerable distance that some policemen are coming towards them. (It is not the case of the prosecution that police personnel were not in uniform.)

13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, which are apparent from the evidence on record, we find that both the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, and one punishable under Section 25 Page 10 of 10 of Arms Act against appellant Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh, beyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and deserves to be acquitted."

10. In the case on hand, interested testimony of official

witnesses have not been corroborated by any independent

witness. The evidence of PW2 & PW7 reveals that they are

stock witnesses and have deposed only at the instance of the

Police. PW3 & PW4 are employees of Petrol Bunk. Only after

the arrest, Police have shown the accused and prior to that they

have not seen the accused. They have not deposed anything

against the accused as to the alleged commission of offence.

11. The complainant himself has investigated the crime.

The credibility of investigation in this is doubtful. The evidence

- 12 -

CRL.A No.1818 OF 2016 c/w CRL.A No.1227 OF 2015

of prosecution witnesses reveals that the accused have not

resisted the police officials before arrest and they have also not

caused any injury to any of the police personnel before they

were apprehended by the police. Even appellants have not

tried to run away after witnessing the police personnel. For the

aforesaid reasons, the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses

will create doubt as to the alleged commission of offence

committed by the accused. Therefore, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the

aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeals are allowed;

ii) Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence

passed in Sessions Case No.212 of 2013 dated

01st October 2015 on the file of I Additional

Sessions Judge, Mysuru, is set aside;