Karnataka High Court
Krishna @ Balakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
CRL.A No. 824 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA @ BALAKRISHNA
S/O RANGANNA
AGED 28 YEARS
2. DAYANAND KUMAR
S/O RAJEGOWDA
AGED 27 YEARS
BOTH ARE
R/AT PUNNUSWAMY BUILDING,
NEAR SUMANGALI SEVASHRAMA,
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,
HEBBALA, BANGALORE-560024.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. JAVEED, ADV.-AMICUS CURIAE FOR APPELLANTS.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560048.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DT 18.11.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-XVII,
BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.744/2009 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
CRL.A No. 824 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of Conviction and order on Sentence dated 18th
November, 2011 passed in Sessions Case No.744 of 2009, by
the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court-XVII,
Bangalore City (for short "the trial Court").
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank
before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Inspector of Police, Mahadevapura Police Station, Bangalore
submitted charge-sheet against accused 1 and 2 for offences
punishable under Sections 397 & 307 of Indian Penal Code. It
is the case of the prosecution that on 10th December, 2008 at
11:45 am, accused who were doing tiles work at the house of
Smt. Geeta Sharma, at No.313, Knights Bridge Apartments,
Kundalahalli, within the limits of Mahadevapura Police Station,
Bangalore City, caught hold of CW1-Smt. Geeta Sharma while
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
she was doing household work, whereby accused No.1 held her
tightly and accused No.2 fisted her face with hands and tried to
strangulate her and attempted to commit her murder. Further,
accused have also snatched her gold ornaments, robbed cash
of Rs.50,000/- and fled the scene. Thus, committed offences
punishable under Sections 397 & 307 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Charges were framed by the trial Court and the
same was read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to them. Having understood the same,
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove
the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined sixteen
witnesses as PWs1-16 and marked twelve documents as
Exhibits P1 to P12 and also marked 12 Material Objects as
MoS1 to 12. On closure of prosecution side evidence,
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, however, have not adduce
any defence evidence on their behalf. During the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses, six documents were
marked as Exhibits D1 to D6. Having heard the argument on
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of
seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of
payment of fine, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two months. Accused were acquitted of the offence
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Respondent-State has not preferred any appeal against
acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal code. Appellants/accused, being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, have
preferred this appeal.
5. Though the appeal is filed by one Smt. Budrunnisa,
learned Advocate, subsequently she has not appeared before
the Court. Therefore, as per order dated 17th June 2025, this
Court has passed an order by appointing Sri S. Javeed, learned
Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
6. Sri S Javeed, Learned Amicus Curiae, would submit
that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record in accordance with law and facts. Except evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
PW1, there are no eye witnesses to this incident. PW1 has not
identified the accused. The identification parade has also not
been conducted by the Investigating officer. One Sri Senthil,
who has assigned the work to the accused, has not been
examined by the prosecution. On all these grounds he sought
to allow the appeal.
7. As against this Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would
submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the records
and evidence on record in accordance with law and facts, and
there are no grounds to interfere with impugned Judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and
hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points, would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the appellants have made out a
ground to interfere with the Judgment of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the
trial Court?
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
2) What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
9. I have examined the materials place before me. It
is the case of the prosecution that on 10th December, 2008 at
11:45 am, accused who were doing tiles work at the house of
Smt. Geeta Sharma, at No.313, Knights Bridge Apartments,
Kundalahalli, caught hold of Smt. Geeta Sharma while she was
doing household work. Accused No.1 held her tightly and
accused No.2 fisted her face with hands and tried to
strangulate her and attempted to commit her murder. Further,
the accused also snatched her gold ornaments and robbed cash
of Rs.50,000/- and fled the scene. Thus, committed offences
punishable under Sections 397 & 307 of Indian Penal Code.
To prove the guilt of the accused, 16 witnesses are examined
as PWs1 to 16, 12 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to
P12 and twelve material objects have been marked as MOs1 to
12.
10. PW1 is the complainant; PWs2 to 5, 8 and 14 are the
circumstantial witnesses; PWs 6, 9 and 10 are witnesses to the
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
seizure mahazar; PW5 is the Medical Officer; PWs11 and 12 are
the Police Constables; and PW16 is the Investigating Officer.
11. PW1-Smt. Geeta Sharma being the complainant, has
deposed that she is residing at No.313 Knights Bridge
Apartments, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru and in her house tiles
laying work was going on in the month of December 2008. One
Senthil and other two labourers, were doing the tiles work. By
10th December 2008, the tiles laying work were almost at the
completion stage and on that day supervisor Senthil had
informed her that he would come late to work thereafter, at
about 8.00 am while she was going to the bus stop to leave her
daughter to the school, both accused 1 and 2 were standing at
the near the security point at main gate. At that time, accused
No.1 informed her that he has left his wrist watch in her house
and expressed his intention to take back the same, to which
she instructed him to come afterwards. Thereafter, at about
9:45 am, her husband left for office. Within 10 to 15 minutes,
both accused came to the house and upon hearing the ring of
calling-bell, she opened the door. Both the accused entered
the house and engaged themselves in attending to tiles
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
cleaning work. After both of them engaged in work, she
started to attend her household work and tried to call Senthil,
but there was no response from that side. After sometime, at
about 11.00 am she received phone call from Senthil stating
that he would come late to attend the work. At that time,
accused No.1, entered the room and told that he had to contact
Senthil, to which she told that he can call Senthil by using the
landline and the accused No.2 was standing at the door.
Accused No.1 entered the room under the pretext of making a
call and at the same time accused No.2 gagged her mouth and
hands and accused No.2 caught hold of her and hit her right
cheek, pressed her neck and thereby attempted to strangulate
her, by which act, she became unconscious. When she
regained consciousness, at that time, she could see accused
entering her bedroom and were searching for valuables. Again,
both of them came near her, hit her on her mouth and kicked
her. Again she lost consciousness. After regaining
consciousness at about 12.15 p.m., she tried to call her
husband on his mobile, but there was no response. Thereafter,
upon the information given by her husband to her neighbours,
CWs4 and 5 came to her house and took her to Vydehi Hospital
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
where she was given first-aid treatment. Thereafter, Police
came to the hospital and recorded her statement and obtained
her signature on the complaint as per Exhibit P1. Later, she
was taken to Manipal Hospital, where she was admitted as an
inpatient for seven days. Police paid visit to her house and did
the spot mahazar as per Exhibit P2. She came to know that
her gold ornaments, as well as cash of Rs.50,000/-, kept in the
locker was stolen by the accused. On 23rd December, 2008,
she was called to Police Station, where she identified the stolen
articles, and she had received the same from the police. She
also came to know that the accused have purchased to mobile
handsets and also came to know from the Police that the police
have recovered MOs1 to 12 from both the accused.
12. PW2 who is the husband of PW1, has spoken to the
effect that on 10th December, 2008, he left office at about 9.15
am. Thereafter, at about 11.45 to 12.00 noon, he received
phone call from his wife and she was unable to speak properly
and was weeping, as such, he immediately contacted his
neighbours CWs3 & 4 to visit his house. Thereafter, he came to
know about the robbery committed in the house and his wife
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
being taken to the hospital. Then he immediately rushed to
hospital where his wife was being treated and thereafter, got
shifted her to Manipal Hospital for further treatment. The
police recorded statement office wife at Vydehi Hospital. His
wife suffered pain in her right jaw. It is his further evidence
that on 25th December, 2008, he was called by Police to the
station. Where he identified both the accused as persons who
were doing tiles work at his Flat. The police recovered the
stolen articles as also two mobile sets which were purchased
out of the stolen money. He had seen both the accused visiting
his Flat doing tiles work along with CW 14.
13. PWs 3 & 4 are circumstantial witnesses and are the
neighbours of PW1 and are residents of the same Apartments in
Flats No.312 and 201-B. It is the evidence of PW3, who is the
immediate neighbour of PW1 that, he has seen the accused
moving in the corridors of the Apartments prior to the incident
for doing tiles work. It is his further evidence that on 10th
December, 2008 at 11:45 to 12.00 noon, on receiving a mobile
call from PW2, he contacted his wife to visit the house of PW1
and report the situation. Thereafter, his wife informed him
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
about the robbery committed in the House of PW1, and PW1
was in the state of shock. Then he immediately informed PW2
about the incident and rushed to Vydehi Hospital, where PW1
was being treated. He has further deposed that on 23rd
December, 2008, Mahadevpura Police, brought both accused to
the Apartments and conducted mahazar as per Exhibit P2 and
he has signed on it.
14. PW5 being material witness, has deposed that the
tiles work was going on during the month of December 2008 in
the Apartment. The workers were engaged in laying tiles in the
Flat of PW1 for the past 3 to 4 days. On 10th December, 2008
at about 12 noon, upon receiving phone call from her husband
i.e. PW4, she went to the house of PW1, where she came to
know that PW1 was in a semi-conscious state and was having
pain in the neck and face, as also, about the robbery
committed in her house. Upon enquiry, PW1 informed her that
accused committed robbery of gold ornaments and also
attempted to cause her death by strangulating her. Then,
herself and others, shifted PW1 to Vydehi Hospital. Thereafter,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
Police came and enquired. Thereafter PW1 was taken to
Manipal Hospital.
15. PWs6, 7 and 10 are the seizure mahazar witnesses
has deposed in their evidence as to the mahazar conducted by
the police as per Exhibit P3 and also as to seizure of properties.
16. PW8-Security Guard of the Apartments, has spoken
to the effect that PWs 1 to 5 are the residents of the
Apartments. The accused were doing tiles work in the said
Apartment and on 10th December, 2008, work was going on in
the House of PW1 and at about 12.40 to 12.55 pm, he came to
know that the tiles laying workers committed robbery in the
house of PW1 by assaulting her. Thereafter, on 23rd December,
2008, Police brought both the accused to the Apartments.
17. The prosecution has produced spot mahazar-Exhibit
P2 and also seizure mahazar-Exhibit P3. The Police have seized
properties under Exhibit P3 and inserted the same in property
form No.141 of 2008 dated 23rd December, 2008. On the same
day, Police have reported the same to the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the learned Magistrate has ordered for retaining the seized
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
properties. Police have also conducted seizure mahazar as per
Exhibit P4 and seized two Nokia Mobile handsets and inserted
the same in property form No.140 of 2008 and have submitted
the same to the investigating officer as required under Section
102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating officer
has also produced the wound certificate Exhibits P7 to 9 and
also Security Register Extract-Exhibit P18. Exhibit P7 the
wound certificate reveals that the injured-Geeta Sharma was
admitted to the hospital with history of assault by two labours
on 10th December, 2008 and the same is not disputed by the
accused. Upon careful examination of the entire material and
record, the trial Court has properly appreciated evidence and
record in accordance with law and facts and passed the
Judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
18. With regard to test identification parade is
concerned, since injured PW1-Geeta Sharma, has clearly
deposed in her evidence that she has identified accused at the
time of commission of offence. When the injured PW1 has
identified the accused and deposed the name of the accused,
the question of conducting identification parade does not arise.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
The trial Court has also properly appreciated the evidence in
this regard. On re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find
any error/illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the trial Court. Prosecution has
placed sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the accused for
commission of offence and Section 397 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. Appellants have not made out any ground to
interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and order
on sentence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding point No.2:
For the reasons and discussions above, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal dismissed;
ii) Judgment of Conviction and order on Sentence
dated 18th November, 2011 passed in SC
No.744 of 2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Sessions Court-XVII, Bangalore City is
confirmed;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40139
HC-KAR
iii) Registry to send the copy of this judgment
along the trial Court records to the trial Court
for taking further action.
iv) The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
