[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Hydarali vs The State By K R S Police Station on 22 January, 2026

                                                     -1-
                                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:4151
                                                              CRL.A No. 780 of 2014


                          HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                                  BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2014 (C)
                          BETWEEN:

                          HYDARALI
                          S/O.MOHAMMED ALI,
                          AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                          R/AT.D.NO.8, KEB CIRCLE, I CROSS,
                          KALYANAGIRI, MYSORE
                          571426.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                          (BY SRI. B LETHIF .,ADVOCATE)

                          AND:
                          THE STATE BY K R S POLICE STATION
                          MANDYA DISTRICT,
                          REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR,
                          HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N          BANGALORE-571426.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka                                                        ...RESPONDENT
                          (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

                               CRL.A. FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE
                          APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
                          COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                          DATED:21/22.2.14 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
                          MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.20/12 -
                          CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE
                          OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
                          NO.5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 5
                          YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF
                          PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER DIRECTED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:4151
                                          CRL.A No. 780 of 2014


HC-KAR



A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC.
AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE
ACQUITTED.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Appellant/Accused No.5-Hydarali has preferred this

appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 21st February,

2014 and order on sentence dated 22nd February, 2014, passed

in SC No.20 of 2012, by the III Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, (for short "the trial

Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Circle

Inspector of Police, Srirangapattana, filed charge-sheet against

accused 1 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 395 of

Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th

August, 2010 at about 8.30 pm, within the limits of Brindavan

Garden coming under KRS Police Station, accused 1 to 5 with

NC: 2026:KHC:4151

HC-KAR

an intention to commit dacoity, went to CW1-Mehabub Peer,

driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03/TV-

0299, and took away the said vehicle along with CW1, snatched

his Nokia make cellphone and one Zen Cell phone and by

pushing him away from the vehicle on the way, took away Tata

Sumo vehicle also, thereby committed offence punishable

under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on

charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused,

same were read over and explained to the accused in the

language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all,

fourteen witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 14, got marked

seventeen documents as Exhibits P1 to P17 and five material

objects were marked as MOs.1 to 5. On closure of prosecution

side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of

Indian Penal Code was recorded. Accused have denied the

evidence appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead

any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard on both

sides, the trial Court acquitted accused 2 to 4 for the offence

punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and

convicted accused 1 and 5 for the offence punishable under

NC: 2026:KHC:4151

HC-KAR

Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine

of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being

aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on

sentence, accused No.5 has preferred this appeal.

4. Sri B. Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

has already acquitted the accused No.5-Asif in Criminal Appeal

No.260 of 2014 decided on 09th March, 2020. He would submit

that, on the ground of principle of parity, this appellant is also

entitled for acquittal. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High

Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State,

would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order

on sentence, submits that the trial Court has passed the

impugned order in accordance with law and facts and there is

no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, he

sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC:4151

HC-KAR

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the records as also the impugned

judgment. Before proceeding to appreciate the record, it is

necessary to mention here as to essential ingredients to

constitute the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code.

The same reads thus:

"In dacoity cases, the evidence, generally available, is of three kinds, viz.-

(i) culprits may be caught red-handed on the spot, but this is rare because the culprits go fully armed and well prepared whereas the victims are fear-

stricken and are more interested in saving their skin rather than in combating with the miscreants;

(ii) identification of the culprits when they are later arrested during the investigation; and

(iii) discovery of the incriminating facts such as looted property, weapons used in the commission of offence, and the like objects. "

7. In the case on hand, the trial Court has acquitted

accused 2 to 4 for offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal

Code, however, has convicted accused 1 and 5 for the offence

under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. I have carefully

examined the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in

NC: 2026:KHC:4151

HC-KAR

Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2014 decided on 09th March, 2020.

In this appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench has elaborately discussed

and re-appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted

accused No.1. The present appellant, being accused No.5,

stand on the same footing as like accused No.1. Hence,

considering the judgment (supra) passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, the present appellant/accused No.5, is also

entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed;

ii) Judgment of conviction 21st February, 2014

and order on sentence 22nd February, 2014,

passed by the III Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, in

SC No.20 of 2012, against the present

appellant/accused No.5, is set aside;

NC: 2026:KHC:4151

HC-KAR

iii) Appellant/accused No.5-Hydarali, is acquitted

of the offence punishable under Section 395 of

Indian Penal Code;

iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant/accused

No.5, stand cancelled;

v) Fine amount in deposit, be returned to the

appellant in accordance with law;

Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with Trial

Court records to the concerned Court.

Sd/-