Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bangalore, in S.C.No.946/2009 dated 08.11.2010. The trial court convicted the appellant, accused No.1, for offences punishable under Sections 398, 324, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one year, and one year, respectively, with all sentences to run concurrently. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 399, and 420 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 01.02.2009 between 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., the accused persons, with common intention, made preparation to commit dacoity at the house of CW.1 located at No.3/4, North Public Xavier Road. Accused No.1 held a knife while accused Nos.2 and 3 held dummy pistols. They disguised themselves as police officials, wearing police uniforms, caps, and fake moustaches, and applied black powder on their faces. They induced CW.1 and CW.7 to deliver valuables by representing themselves as police officers. In the course of the incident, accused No.1 caused grievous injuries to CW.1 and CW.7 with a knife. CW.1 and CW.7 managed to apprehend one person at the spot, who was later identified as accused No.1, while the others fled. CW.1 lodged a complaint, Ex.P1, leading to the registration of a case. The investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet was filed. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses (PWs.1 to 16) and marked Exs.P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 27. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing arguments and appreciating evidence, convicted accused No.1 and acquitted the others. In the appeal, the appellant contended that the conviction was based on interested witnesses, that their testimonies were inconsistent and uncorroborated by independent witnesses, that no test identification parade was held, and that material contradictions in the spot mahazar and timing of the incident were overlooked. The State argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that accused No.1 was caught at the scene with weapons and that the evidence of PWs.1, 4, and 6 sufficiently established preparation to commit robbery. The High Court began examining the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW.1, but the provided judgment text ends abruptly during the court's analysis without revealing the final decision. Thus, the outcome of the appeal remains unstated in the available excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 398, 324, 419 IPC based on the evidence on record, given the alleged inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses
Final Decision
The provided judgment excerpt does not include the concluding portion; the final decision is not stated.
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (01) 37
Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2010
P. D. Subramanya (Amicus Curiae for Appellant), M. Diwakar Maddur (HCGP for Respondent)
Sharief S/O Rehman Sharief
The State of Karnataka, By Basavangudi Police Station, Bangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction by Fast Track Court under Sections 398, 324, 419 IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant/Accused No.1 prayed to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 08.11.2010 passed in S.C.No.946/2009
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting him based on insufficient and inconsistent evidence of interested witnesses, and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC-XV, Bangalore, convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 398, 324, 419 IPC and sentenced him to RI of seven years, one year, and one year respectively, all to run concurrently, vide judgment dated 08.11.2010 in S.C.No.946/2009. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 399, 420 IPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 398, 324, 419 IPC based on the evidence on record, given the alleged inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court's judgment is opposed to law and facts; PW.1 did not name the assailant during hospital treatment; no weapon was seized in the house; spot mahazar timing and contents contradicted PWs.1, 2, and 12; PW.4, PW.6, PW.9 turned hostile; PW.5 did not corroborate PW.1; no test identification parade was conducted; PW.7 gave a different time of incident; PW.8 could not identify; all witnesses were interested and their testimonies uncorroborated by independent witnesses; mahazar witnesses signed without knowing contents and stated no recovery occurred in their presence; trial court failed to appreciate contradictions leading to miscarriage of justice.
Respondent argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; accused No.1 was caught at the scene with deadly weapons; evidence of PWs.1, 4, and 6 established preparation to commit robbery; the trial court rightly convicted the appellant; the appeal deserved dismissal.
Judgment Excerpts
Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 398 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and for the offence under Section 419 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. Further, it was ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.
the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that this accused along with other accused persons with a common intention has made preparation to commit dacoity in the house of CW.1, by holding deadly weapons and dummy pistols, caused grievous injuries to C.W.1 and 7 by assaulting them with knife and induced them to deliver the valuable things by saying that they are the police officials and they were in disguise by dressing themselves in police uniforms.
though the complainant/PW.1 has handed over the appellant to the police and went to hospital for treatment, but he has not disclosed the name of the assailant while he was taking treatment in the hospital.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC-XV, Bangalore in S.C.No.946/2009 on 08.11.2010 under Sections 398, 324, 419 IPC and sentenced to seven years, one year, and one year RI respectively, to run concurrently. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2010 before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 398, 324, 419, 307, 399, 420
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 233
