Karnataka High Court
Umesh And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200115 OF 2018
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
C/W.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200067 OF 2018
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
IN CRL.A.NO.200115/2018:
BETWEEN:
Digitally
signed by
RENUKA
Location: 1. UMESH S/O JATTEPPA NATIKAR,
HIGH COURT
OF AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: COOLE.
KARNATAKA
2. RAMESH S/O JATTEPPA NATIKAR,
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: COOLE,
BOTH ARE R/O. CHANEGAON,
TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107,
THROUGH CHADACHAN P.S.,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 23.05.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, IN S.C. NO.149/2016
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395
R/W. SECTION 397 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 25(1A)
OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
IN CRL.A.NO. 200067/2018:
BETWEEN:
CHANDU S/O VISHWANATH LANDAGE,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOTAGI,
TQ. & DIST. SHOLAPUR-413001,
(MAHARASHTRA STATE),
(BUT WRONGLY SHOWN IN CAUSE-TITLE AS
R/O UTAGI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ZALAKI POLICE STATION,
TQ. INDI,
DISTRICT.VIJAYAPURA,
BY CPI CHADCHAN CIRCLE,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 23.05.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN S.C. NO.30/2013 (S.C.NO.
149/2016), CONVICTING HIM FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 R/W SEC. 397 OF IPC
AND FURTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A
PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.20,000/-, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE
SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO MONTHS AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF ALL CHARGES IN
S.C.NO.30/2013(S.C.NO.149/2016) ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881
CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard learned counsels Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti and Sri Sanjay Sanjay A. Patil for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin for the respondent-State.
2. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.05.2018 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, (for short 'Trial Court'), in S.C.No.30/2013 and S.C. No.149/2016, whereby, the appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC and accused No.1 - Umesh, who is appellant No.1 in Crl.A. No.200115/2018 for the offence under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act and ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each with default sentence; Further, in -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR addition to above, accused No.1 was ordered to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act with default sentence.
3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of these two appeals are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged contending that in the intervening night of 03.07.2009 between 12.30 a.m. to 01.00 p.m., in the farmhouse belonging to the complainant-Sayabanna Madar, situated at Gundawana Village within the limits of Jalaki Police Station, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 along with accused No.3 (who died subsequently), committed the dacoity in the farmhouse and valuable properties belonging to the complainant, namely; Nokia mobile telephone handset, gold Tali-chain, gold Boramala-chain belonging to the wife of the complainant Neelawwa and cash of Rs.10,000/-.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR 3.1 Thereafter, on the same day, all the accused persons went to another hut situated in the field belonging to Yallappa Bhutali (CW7), committed the dacoity of gold Tali-chain and two gold Boramala-chains belonging to CW8 to 10, namely; Parvati, Savitri and Jayashree.
3.2 It is also alleged that accused No.1 was holding a country pistol and under the gun point, the dacoity has been committed.
3.3 It is further alleged that accused persons assaulted the complainant and CW7 to CW11 with iron patty on their hands and in the process of dacoity, they have injured the complainant and other witnesses and thereby they have committed the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of India Penal Code and accused No.1 has committed the offence under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act. After registering the case, the Jalaki Police have thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR 3.4 The case was committed to the Sessions Court and during the pendency of S.C. No.30/2013, accused Nos.1 and 2 got absconded themselves. Therefore, the case was split up against them and later on when they were traced, split up charge-sheet came to be filed and S.C. No.149/2016 was registered and proceeded.
3.5 Learned Trial Judge after securing the presence of accused conducted the detail trial and passed the judgment convicting the accused persons as aforesaid and sentenced as referred to supra.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the Crl.A. No.200115/2018 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.A. No.200067/2018.
5. The State did not choose to file any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting accused No.5 and as such, it has become final.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have raised following grounds in their appeal memo, while accused No.4 has raised following ground in his appeal. In Crl.A. No.200115/2018 by accused Nos.1 and 2:
"4) That, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned judge is contrary to the facts of the case, evidence on record & against the settled principles of law.
5) That, the trial court has totally ignored the fact that, PW.1 to 3 were treated has hostile and further that, they have not deposed anything regarding the complaint or decoity which alleged to have took place in their huts.
6) That, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that, though the trial court in Para No.57 of its Judgment has held that prosecution failed to prove seizure of M.O. 8 and 9 under panchanama Ex.P.24 and P.29 but has wrongly proceeded to convict the appellants for the alleged offences.
7) That, trial court totally ignored evidence on record that, though PW.4 and 5 who are panch to spot mahazar Ex.P.5 have not supported to the case of prosecution even then the trial court -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR erroneously convicted the appellants, PW.13 the 1.0. has drawn single panchanama to both the spots were in decoity was committed at different places and thus there is error in drawing up the spot panchanama.
8) That, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that, the trial court has erroneously convicted the appellants. even though it has discussed and come to conclusion that PW.1 to 3 have not properly identified accused persons even before the Court and that being so, the prosecution has totally failed in fixing the identity of the accused as that of the appellants and other accused persons.
9) That, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that, initially case came to be registered unknown accused persons on 03.07.2009 and only that on 22.09.2009 it is brought in evidence that, PW.12 arrested A-1 with a Hero Honda Motorcycle without registration number in which connection PW.12 enquired with A-1 and during enquiry it is prosecution case that, A-1 confessed the crime made by him and other accused persons on 03.07.2009. Hence, the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence where in every link has to be completed and to be proved by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR prosecution which only indicates that, the present appellants and other person, this aspect of the matter, it is submitted that, the prosecution has not successfully proved to link every circumstance against the appellants so as to complete the chain.
10) That, looking into the case of the prosecution and evidence on record absolutely there are no materials to convict the Appellants U/s. 395 R/w Sec.397 of IPC and U/s. 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act.
11) That, the Learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the Appellants without properly appreciating the evidence in its right prospective manner.
12) That, without admitting the case of the prosecution, the order of sentence imposed is too exorbitant and too higher side.
13) That, prosecution failed to give any explanation regarding the non examinations of material witnesses.
14) That, trial court failed to follow the basic principles of law regarding the proving of prosecution case. It is settled law that, the prosecution must prove their case independently
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR without depending upon the weakness or lacuna on the part of the defence.
15) That, trial court ought to have come to conclusion that, I.O. as conducted the tainted investigation.
16) That, court below not properly put the incriminating circumstances to the Appellants while recording 313 statements.
17) That, court below ought to have given a benefit of doubt to the Appellants.
18) That, it is respectfully submitted that, the learned Sessions Judge has not at all appreciated the case of the Appellants in the light to human probabilities and the same has vitiated the findings. The reasons assigned by court in convicting the appellants are illegal and incorrect. The same has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the appellants." In Crl.A. No.200067/2018 by accused No.4:
"9. The impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and facts of the case,
10. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence before it and has thus
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR erroneously convicted the appellant/accused for the alleged offences.
11. The Trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that there is lot of contradictions between the evidence of witnesses which goes to the root of the prosecution case.
12. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record regarding test identification parade which was not conducted by the I.O. immediately after arrest of the accused person.
13. The trial court has totally ignored the fact that, PW.1 to 3 were treated has hostile and further that, they have not deposed anything regarding the complaint or decoity which alleged to have took place in their huts.
14. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that, though the trial court in Para No.57 of its Judgment has held that prosecution failed to prove seizure of M.O. 8 and 9 under panchanama Ex.P.24 and P.29 but has wrongly proceeded to convict the appellant for the alleged offences.
15. The trial court totally ignored evidence on record that, though PW.4 and 5 who are panch to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR spot mahazar Ex.P5 have not supported to the case of prosecution even then the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant, PW.13 the 1.0 has drawn single panchanama to both the spots were in decoity was committed at different places and thus there is error in drawing up the spot panchanama.
16. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the trial court has erroneously convicted the appellant even though it has discussed and come to conclusion that PW.1 to 3 have not properly identified accused persons even before the Court and that being so, the prosecution has totally failed in fixing the identity of the accused as that of the appellant and other accused persons.
17. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the admittedly they were no finger prints found in the hut of the present appellant when the same was sent for matching, that being so, the trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant.
18. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that, initially case came to be registered unknown accused personson 03.07.2009 and only that on 22.09.2009 it is brought in evidence that, PW.12 arrested A-1 with a Hero Honda Motorcycle without registration number in which connection PW.12 enquired with A-1 and during enquiry it is
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR prosecution case that, A-1 confessed the crime made by him and other accused persons on 03.07.2009. Hence the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence where in every link has to be completed and to be proved by the prosecution which only indicates that, the present appellant and other accused persons are the culprits and not any other person, this aspect of the matter, it is submitted that, the prosecution has not successfully proved to link every circumstance against the appellant so as to complete the chain.
19. It is submitted that, viewed at any angle the impugned Judgment of conviction suffers from serious infirmities and question of law and misconception in appreciating evidence of prosecution witnesses and thus the impugned Judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside."
7. Learned counsels representing the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that material on record is not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge wrongly convicted appellants.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
8. Even though there was no proper recovery of the ornaments from the custody of the appellants, the learned Trial Judge placed much reliance on the oral testimony of the PW12 and wrongly convicted the appellants resulting miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeals.
9. Alternatively learned counsels for the appellants would contend that in the event of this Court upholding conviction, custody period already undergone may be treated as period of imprisonment as there was no material which would warrant ordering of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC and thus, sought for passing appropriate orders by allowing the appeals in part.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin appearing for the respondent-State supports the impugned common judgment.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
11. He would further contend that the seized material objects are placed before the Court and marked as MOs.1 to 11. Among them, Nokia Mobile handset belonging to the complainant is marked as MO.1 and Gold Tali-chain and Boramala-Chain, cash of Rs.2,000/- and the country pistol seized from the custody of the accused pursuant to the voluntary statement of Hero-Honda and Yamaha Motorbikes were also seized pursuant to the voluntary statement of the accused persons having not disputed, and gold ornaments having been identified by the complainant and other witnesses, the Injury Certificate issued by the Doctor, who was examined as PW8 would sufficiently establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, which has been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. He would also contend that PW12 Chidambaram Madiwalar who was the C.P.I. and Investigating Officer
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR who recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 4.
13. Based on such voluntary statements, recovery of the material objects have taken place vide Recovery Panchnama marked at Exs.P23 to P25.
14. He would further contend that PW12 did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity as against the accused persons and having regard to the value of the seized material objects which were produced and marked before the Court, the question of implanting those material objects only with an intention to get an order of conviction for the appellants cannot be countenanced in law and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
15. Sri Shahabuddin also contend that in a matter of this nature Courts are not expected to show any leniency, as it would send wrong message to society. Therefore, alternate submission of the counsel for
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR appellants cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto.
16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution has
successfully established all ingredients to
attract the offence under Sections 395 read with Section 397 of Indian Penal Code insofar as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned?
2) Whether the prosecution has successfully placed necessary material evidence on record to confirm the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge insofar as the offence under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act as against accused No.1?
3) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference?
4) Whether the sentence is excessive?
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
5) What order?
Regarding Point Nos.1 to 3:-
17. In the case on hand, admittedly complainant- Sayabanna and Yallappa Bhutali were residing in their farmhouses(huts) on the day of incident along with their family in Gundawana Village.
18. The complainant deposed before the Court that about 08 to 09 years earlier to the date of his deposition, during the night hours when he along with his family were sleeping in his hut, about 12 in the midnight, dacoits trespassed into his hut and forcibly snatched Golden ear studs, toe rings, gold Tali-chain. They identified the seized material objects as MO Nos.1 and 2.
19. PW2 also deposed in line with the deposition of PW1-complainant.
20. PW3 - Yalappa Bhutali, deposed that he along with his wife was residing in his farmhouse in Gundawana
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR Village and dacoits trespassed into their place and they snatched Gold Tali-chain, Gold boramala and a sum of Rs.60,000/- cash by assaulting on his head and back. He also identified the recovered gold chain as MO No.3 before the Court. Test identification was no doubt conducted.
21. PW10 - Sahebagouda Patil, P.S.I. of Jalaki Police Station, deposed that based on the complaint lodged by PW1, he registered the case in Crime No.84/2009.
22. PW13 - Sridhar Doddi is the C.P.I. of Indi Circle, who was in-charge of Chadchan Circle, deposed about the further investigation.
23. PW12 - Chidambaram Madiwalar, CPI, is the Investigating Officer, who apprehended the accused persons and got recorded their voluntary statements in the presence of panch witnesses. The admissible portions of the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 to 4 were marked as Exs.P19 to P22.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
24. It is to be noticed that accused No.3 subsequently died and therefore, case against accused No.3 stood abetted. It is also to be borne in mind that accused No.1 and accused No.2 got absconded when the case was pending and therefore, the case was ordered to be split up and later on when they were apprehended, case against them proceeded in S.C. No.149/2016.
25. Based on such voluntary statements given by the accused persons, PW12 proceeded to the spot along with the panch witnesses and discovered the fact of hiding the stolen material objects which were the part of dacoity and recovery Panchnama was drafted by the PW12 in the presence of panch witnesses, which were marked as Exs.P23 to P25.
26. During such recovery, based on the voluntary statement given by Accused No.1, PW12 was also able to seize a country pistol from the custody of accused No.1. Admittedly, accused No.1 did not possess any license to
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR hold the firearm, which was in working condition. Therefore, in order to prosecute accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 7 and 3 of the Indian Arms Act, sanction was obtained by the Investigating Officer from the Deputy Commissioner, which was granted by the learned Deputy Commissioner vide Ex.P23.
27. Injuries that were found on the body of the complainant party are established by the prosecution by examining Dr. Bharati Gajakosh as PW8, who issued the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P9.
28. It is the unequivocal say of the PW1 to PW3 that the dacoits entered their huts in Gundawana Village and they assaulted them including the women folk on their hands with iron patty. It is also there unequivocal testimony that accused No.1 was holding the country pistol and was threatening that unless the valuables are parted away he is going to kill them. These factors are
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR not controverted by defence except suggesting to the prosecution witnesses that they are deposing falsely.
29. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the accused statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by the accused with regard to the MOs.1 to 11. Further, they did not claim ownership over MOs.1 to 11.
30. Admittedly, the valuable ornaments which were recovered by the PW12 pursuant to the voluntary statements could not have been implanted by PW12 only with an intention to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case on hand.
31. Further, PW12 and PWs.1 to 3 are totally strangers to the accused persons and in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, their oral testimony as against the accused persons cannot be doubted.
32. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in the intervening night between 12.30 p.m. to 01.00 a.m. on
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR 03.07.2009 in a lonely place. Therefore, expecting the further proof with regard to the identity of the accused is totally uncalled for. Further, the identity of the accused persons has been established by the prosecution by placing necessary evidence on record.
33. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, it is crystal clear that the recovery has taken place from the custody of accused persons about MOs.1 to 11 by PW12 after apprehending accused Nos.1 to 4 and based on their voluntary statement it would be sufficient enough to establish the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.
34. The articles which were robbed in the process of dacoity having been recovered and deadly weapon namely pistol has been used in the incident, injury that has been taken place on the witness vide Wound Certificate Ex.P9 corroborated by the oral testimony of the Doctor, who is
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR examined as PW8, would be sufficient enough to establish the offence under Section 397 of IPC as well.
35. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge while appreciating the case of the prosecution properly applied its mind and then convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.
36. Accused No.3 having been dead, case against him stood abetted and accused No.5 came to be acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.
37. Pertinently, very fact of acquittal of accused No.5 with the cogent reasons as the State not filing any appeal against the order of acquittal insofar as accused No.5 is concerned, shows that there is sufficient application of judicial mind by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment.
38. Therefore, even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, this Court is of the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR considered opinion that the appellants have not made out any grounds whatsoever to hold the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity.
39. Further, holding a firearm which is in working condition without the license itself completes the offence insofar as the punishment under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act insofar as accused No.1 is concerned.
40. Thus, this Court is of the concerned opinion that point Nos.1 and 2 are to be answered in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative and accordingly they are answered.
Regarding Point No.4:-
41. The learned Trial Judge has granted minimum punishment of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR
42. However, the learned Trial Judge did not order for running of the sentence consecutively for the offence under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act.
43. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has ordered for the benefit under Section 428 IPC itself.
44. Since minimum punishment prescribed under the statute has been ordered for the proved offence, hardly there is any scope for reduction of the sentence in the present appeal. Accordingly, the point No.4 is answered in the negative.
45. In view of the finding of this Court on the point Nos.1 to 4 as above, following:
ORDER i. The appeals are meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. Time is granted for the appellants to surrender before the Trial Court for
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2881 CRL.A No. 200115 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 200067 of 2018 HC-KAR serving the remaining part of the sentence till 10.07.2025.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59 CT:PK