Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O. Giddappa Waddar vs The State By Munirabad Police on 1 March, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100005/2014
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH S/O. GIDDAPPA WADDAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: LORRY MAINTENANCE,
R/O. RAMALINGANA GUDI,
CHITRAKERI STREET,
HOSPET.
(UNDERGOING SENTENCE).
2. BABA PATEL S/O. MOHAMMED
PATEL BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER, R/O. GUDNAL,
MUDDEBIHAL TALUK,
DISTRICT : BIJAPUR,
AT PRESENT R.T.O. OFFICE,
BTR NAGAR, HOSPET.,
(UNDERGOING SENTENCE).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRIYUTHS VIJAY S. CHINIWAR & MAHIBOOB S.
HALLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF MUNIRABAD POLICE,
2
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY LEARNED
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN S.C.
NO.9/2013 DATED 11.12.2013, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 392 OF I.P.C. AND ETC.
I.A. NO.1/2014 IS FILED FOR SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL A/W. I.A. COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.9/2013 on the file of Sessions Judge, Koppal, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sessions convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence 3 punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity)
2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned State Public Prosecutor for respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that except the Investigation Officer, all the prosecution witnesses examined by prosecution have turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge by solely relying upon the evidence of Investigation Officer with regard to recovery of some articles at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 has convicted the accused, which is illegal and is not tenable under law.
4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the discrepancies in the evidence of Investigation Officer has made it untrustworthy for acceptance. Though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt the trial Court 4 has wrongly convicted appellants and same is liable to be interfered by this Court. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant examined before trial Court as P.W.1 has not even identified the accused persons before the Court nor he has implicated the accused persons into crime and none of the pancha witnesses with regard to recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 have supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, for all these reasons, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted and the trial Court has committed serious error in appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor argued before the Court that though there is no evidence from the independent witnesses, nevertheless, the evidence of Investigation Officer is trustworthy for acceptance. On appreciation of the evidence on record, if the Court comes to a conclusion that the evidence of 5 Investigation Officer is trustworthy for acceptance merely because he is a Police Officer, his evidence cannot be doubted or rejected on that particular ground. This Court has to dismiss the appeal confirming the orders of trial Court. He further contends that there are ample materials to show and connect the accused persons to the crime as the incriminating articles like mobile phone which was the subject matter of theft from the custody of P.W.1 and also the lorry recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and further the recovery of sponge iron ore at the instance of accused No.1 clearly discloses that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. Even though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the evidence of Investigation Officer can be believed.
6. After hearing both sides the point that arises for my consideration is as under:
6
" Whether the appellants have made out any reasonable or substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court?"
7. Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded in this case, it is just and necessary to have a cursory look at the factual matrix of this case. As per the complaint lodged by C.W.1 - Channaiah, the Munirabad Police have registered a case in Crime No.231/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C. Thereafter they have investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. It is the allegation that complainant by name Channayya was the driver of the vehicle bearing its registration No.KA-36/7411, which belonged to P.W.9 Vikas S/o. Vinod Thather. It is the case that complainant on 14.10.2012 after loading the vehicle with sponge iron weighing about 17.530 tonnes was proceeding from Dhanapur to Kottur. When the lorry reached near Simla cross at 10.00 p.m. on NH-13 near 7 Tungabhadra dam three persons came in a motor cycle from behind and intercepted the lorry and took the complainant on their motor cycle, on the pretext that he has caused some accident and the injured has been admitted to hospital, they also snatched the lorry key, mobile and an amount of Rs.2,000/- from him. Thereafter two persons took the complainant near a canal and left the complainant with one person and another person went away from the said place. On the pretext of bringing some food to complainant that person also left the place. Even though complainant was waiting in the said place, none of them returned. Thereafter, complainant by catching a bus came near Simla cross, where his vehicle was intercepted by accused persons, and found his lorry missing. On these allegations, a complainant came to be filed after bringing this fact to the notice of lorry owner. During the course of investigation, police have received a credible information that accused Nos.1 and 2 were talking to each other that they have to secure two lorries for the purpose of lifting iron ore from that particular 8 place. On the basis of this information, police have arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 recorded their voluntary statements and proceeded with the investigation. At the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, a lorry belonging to P.W.9 and mobile belonging to complainant were seized on 15.10.2012. At the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and some other accused, police have also seized the following materials, which are marked at M.O.Nos.1 to 16 in S.C. No.21/2013 :
1. One Birla Company tyre.
2. One Apollo Company tyre - AMAR DLX
3. One Apollo Company tyre - X7-7
4. One MRF Company tyre.
5. Four Lorry tyre disks.
6. One MRF Company tyre.
7. One lorry tyre disk.
8. Hero Honda motor cycle bearing its Reg. No.KA-
48E/1575.
9. Another Hero Honda motor cycle bearing its Reg. No.KA-37/S-3547.
10. One MRF Company tyre.
11. One Birla Company tyre.
9
12. One Lorry disk.
13. One Lorry disk.
8. After recovering all these materials, the Investigation Officer has filed charge sheet. The accused persons were arrested and produced before the Court. Since the date of their arrest, accused persons are in judicial custody. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against the accused persons and also recorded the plea. Earlier there were five accused persons, out of them, accused No.3 was juvenile. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and one material object has been marked at M.O. No.1. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). Ultimately after appreciating the materials on record, accused Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty by the trial Court and accused Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted.
10
9. As rightly argued by learned counsel for appellants, none of the witnesses including the complainant have supported the case of the prosecution. It appears that the evidence of Investigation Officer has been solely relied upon by trial Court.
10. P.W.1 Channayya in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the complaint averments. Even though he has stated in the complaint that he can identify the culprits, he has not done so before the Court. No Identification Parade had been conducted, nor he has earlier identified any one of the accused persons before the Court or at the time of evidence. On the other hand, he has specifically stated that, at no point of time he has seen the accused persons. He thought that somebody have taken away his lorry. He has further stated that the bills, which were raised for transporting sponge iron in the lorry were kept underneath of driver's seat in the lorry. But during the course of cross- 11 examination, he has identified the mobile, which was recovered from the accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. According to the prosecution, P.W.3 Jeevankumar and P.W.4 Prabhu are the pancha witnesses for seizure of M.O. No.1 under Ex.P-6. However, the said pancha witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution by simply stating that their signatures were obtained by police in police station itself and no material objects has been recovered in their presence. During the course of cross-examination, whole contents of Ex.P-6 was put to the mouth of these witnesses, but nothing could be elicited from them. P.W.2 Manjunath and PW-5 Ramu are the witnesses for seizure of lorry on 15.10.2012 under Ex.P-
4. These two witnesses have totally turned hostile. In the cross-examination nothing has been elicited with regard to seizure of said lorry. P.W.6 M.B. Inayat, Police Constable, has translated the information of complainant. P.W.7 Vishwanath is the prime witness to prosecution case, who 12 has conducted the investigation. P.W.8 Venkatappa, C.P.I., has submitted charge sheet and he is not a material witness. P.W.9 Vikas S/o. Vinod Thather, is the owner of lorry in which sponge iron was being transported. Therefore, except the evidence of Investigation Officer, none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Now the question is, whether the trial Court is right in believing the version of Investigation Officer in order to convict the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that none of the witnesses have supported prosecution case. However, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction by relying upon a decision reported in -
AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3344 between Pramod Kumar v. State (GNCT) of Delhi.
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
13
"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. There is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
12. Basing on this decision, the evidence of Investigation Officer has been believed by the trial Court. But that disturbs this Court is that though the trial Court 14 has believed the Investigation Officer, but failed to discuss the evidence of Investigation Officer on the touch stone of arguments or the defence taken up by the accused that the mahazar drawn by Police Officer was in the police station itself as none of the witnesses have supported, the uncorroborated testimony of Investigation Officer should not be believed. When such a plea has been taken by accused, it is incumbent upon the Court to discuss the evidence of Investigation Officer and find out whether his evidence can be relied upon beyond all reasonable doubt and it is so trustworthy and credible to record a conviction of judgment. Therefore, there is a burden on the part of this Court to find out that, in view of the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether the evidence of Investigation Officer can be made a sole basis for confirming the judgment of trial Court.
13. Before adverting to the evidence of Investigation Officer, it is worth to note here some of the rulings cited by learned counsel for appellants. In a case reported in - 15
2013 (1) Kar. L. J. 591 (SC) between Govindaraju Alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Another.
14. The relevant portion of judgment is at paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein it is said that -
"It cannot be stated as a rule that a Police Officer can or cannot be a sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. if the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a Police Officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness."
In another ruling, which is reported in -
162013 (2) Kar. L.J. 638 between Prabhu and Others v. State by Rural Police Station, Bidar Rural.
15. In the said judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
A social evil and offence i.e., Section 395 of I.P.C. dacoity out of zeal the trial Court convicted the accused. Such convictions bend the rule of law. Complainant himself turned hostile; other witnesses not supported prosecution - Held, it could not be said, prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, thus all appellants are acquitted and appeals are allowed."
16. What has been observed in this particular case is that, " The Court below having laboured to find a case for the prosecution by choosing to quote certain statements of those witnesses, is hardly the manner in which it could be said that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The zeal of the Court below to bring home the charges against the accused who 17 may be dangerous dacoits, would bend the rule of law which cannot be permitted."
17. The next ruling cited by learned counsel for appellants is reported in -
AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2271 between State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Another.
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 7.7 that -
"Thus, the law on this issue can be summarized to the effect that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. It also depends on the nature of the property so recovered, whether it was likely to pass readily from hand to hand. Suspicion should not take the place of proof."18
The last judgment cited by learned counsel for appellants is reported in -
2011 (2) S.C.D. (Cri.) 536 between Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said judgment that, "the inference of guilt in circumstantial evidence case can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Discovery of the material object, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. It was also held that, the witnesses declared hostile, it would be not sufficient to hold accused persons guilty for commission of the offence".
19The last decision cited by learned counsel for appellants is reported in -
(2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 399 between Madhu vs. State of Kerala.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said judgment that -
"Conviction was recorded with a consequence of recovery of ornaments worn by deceased, in the said case pursuant to information furnished by accused and factum of their having been sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around the time of occurrence - Held, evidence produced by prosecution does not in any way establish guilt of accused."
20. The sum and substance of the above said rulings as to my perception is that the evidence of the witnesses even though they turn hostile, but, there must be some corroboration from the evidence of the witnesses in order to link the recovery of any articles to the accused persons. The 20 Investigation Officer, though a sole witness, should connect the accused persons to the incriminating articles. His evidence should not be discarded only on the ground that he is the Investigation Officer and he is always interested in the success of the prosecution. Therefore, he should not be dubbed as an interested witness, on that particular ground if his evidence is otherwise trustworthy and credible for acceptance. However, the Court also should bear in mind the Investigating Officers so far as the criminal cases are concerned, they are naturally interested in the success of the prosecution. The implanting of the witnesses, creating of the evidence against the accused persons, collecting materials against the accused persons, with over enthusiastic manner can't be ruled out, but the evidence should be tested in the touch stone of above rulings to ascertain whether the Investigating Officer is in any manner not reliable and his evidence cannot be made use of as a sole basis for conviction of the accused persons. In this 21 background, the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this case play a dominant role.
21. Let me first go through the evidence of the Investigating Officer - PW-7 and refer his evidence with other materials on record to find out whether his evidence is totally whisper the acceptance.
22. PW-7 - Vishwanath has stated in his evidence that the complainant has lodged a complaint on 15.10.2012 at 12.00 Noon and he registered a case in Crime No. 231/2012 under Section 384 of I.P.C. and went to the spot and conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P5. But the witnesses for panchanama in fact have totally turned hostile to the prosecution. Nobody has supported. It is further deposed that on the same day they went to a place called Kasinakandi at about 3.10 p.m. where they found a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/7411 parked and the said lorry was recovered under Ex.P4. This was also not supported by any of the witnesses including the 22 complainant, who never stated about the recovery of this lorry. So, this clearly go to show that this lorry was not recovered at the instance of accused No.1 even before arresting of accused this particular lorry was recovered. It is further stated that on 18.10.2012 on receiving credible information that two persons were searching for two lorries for the purpose of shifting some materials. On receiving the said information, this witness went near Hirebaganala Village and arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statements and on the basis of their voluntary statements, he secured the presence of two panch witnesses - Prabhu and Jeevan Kumar and recovered one mobile phone and also seized document - Ex.P3 pertaining to the lorry and iron ore at the instance of accused No.2, here also witnesses turned hostile. Here itself, it is worth to refer the evidence of PW-1 - Mr. Channaiah with reference to mobile phone. The complainant has not at all produced any material to show that this mobile phone belongs to him. The Investigating Officer also not made any effort to secure any 23 documents from the complainant to show that he is the owner of the said mobile phone.
23. It is further deposed by this Investigating Officer that the accused Nos.1 and 2 took this witness and panch witnesses and on the basis of their statements he has also recovered two loads of sponge iron which was dumped near Kasanakandi Village near a hillock. But very peculiarly these particular sponge iron has not been marked before the Court nor any sample has been produced before the Court. Further, the evidence of PW-9 Mr. Vikas, which shows that he has taken the delivery of sponge iron to his custody by the order of the Court. The important aspect to be noted here is that according to the Investigating Officer, this sponge iron was seized near the Kasanakandi Village hillock. The panch witnesses so far as this aspect is concerned, totally turned hostile. On the other hand, some doubt is created with regard to the seizure of the iron from the evidence of PW-9, who has stated in his examination-in-chief 24 itself that when he took the lorry which was parked near the Police Station, at that time the sponge iron was also there in the lorry. How this sponge iron came into this lorry is nowhere explained by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the evidence of the Investigating Officer so far as this recovery is concerned and how this sponge iron again came back to the lorry is a doubtful circumstance, not been explained by any body.
24. Apart from the above, it is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the identification period of the accused persons. If the accused persons are totally unknown and strangers to the witnesses to the prosecution, in this particular case PW-1 who is the complainant who saw the accused persons i.e. particularly accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused and in the complaint in Ex.P1 he has categorically stated that if the accused persons are shown to him he can identify them and they were all aged between 25 to 26 years and one person was 40 to 45 years and another 25 person 18 to 19 years old. When such being the case, the non-conducting of the identification period is also a serious lapse and fault on the part of the Investigating Officer. Not only that he has not got the test identification period conducted but in the examination-in-chief itself he states at paragraph 13 that after arrest of the accused Nos.1 and 2 he secured the presence of the complainant CW-1 - Channaiah and showed the accused persons to the said witness. This is totally an unknown procedure under criminal jurisprudence. Section 54-A of the Criminal Procedure Code defines, the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of conducting identification period, which reads thus :
"54A. Identification of person arrested.-- Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, 26 direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit".
In this particular case, the above said provision has not been followed by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of getting the accused persons identified by the important witness. Apart from this, the Karnataka Police Manual also at Chapter XXXIII para 1362 cast certain responsibility on the Investigating Officer, which reads as follows :
"1362. The following are the salient points to be borne in mind by Police Officers arranging identification parades.--
(1) Warn the accused person that he will be put up for a parade and he could keep himself veiled; (2) Secure the services of a Magistrate for holding an identification parade; if this is not possible, secure two or more respectable and independent persons of the locality to hold the parade; do not select persons already known to the identifying witnesses to stand along with the suspects in the parade; arrange for 27 the identification parade immediately an accused is arrested. There should be no delay. (3) When one accused is arrested in a case in which more than one accused is required to be identified, do not postpone the parade of the arrested accused, till the others are secured.
As each accused is arrested, go on arranging for the parade.
(4) Other persons participating in the parade should be of the same build, age, dress and appearance as the suspects;
(5) Maintain a minimum proportion of 1:5 and a maximum proportion of 1:10; distribute the accused among others. They should not be made to stand together;
(6) Keep the accused out of the view of the witnesses and take precautions to prevent their being seen by others from the time of their arrest, if they are to be put up for identification parade subsequently;
(7) Shuffle the persons in the parade after identification by each witness and make a record of having done so in the proceedings; (8) In respect of each accused, a separate identification parade should be held;
28(9) When several accused persons are required to be identified, the innocent persons, mixed up with one accused at one parade, should not be mixed up with another accused at a second parade. They should be changed, with every change of an accused person".
25. In view of the above said guidelines, the Investigating Officer must conduct the test identification period of the accused persons who are strangers to the witnesses to the prosecution. Why this particular aspect has not been done, why the complainant was secured to the Police Station and show the accused persons to the complainant is not explained by the Investigating Officer. This particular act or attitude of the Investigating Officer shows that for the purpose of his convenience he can conveniently overcome the statutory principles and he can conveniently throw the legal principles to the wind. When such a lapse is there on the part of the Investigating Officer, how the evidence of such Officer could be believed, so far as the other aspect with regard to the recovery of the 29 incriminating articles at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 if the said evidence of the Investigating Officer is not corroborated.
26. In the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it is suggested that he never gone to any place nor conducted any mahazar as stated by him in the examination-in-chief and all the mahazars were drawn in the Police Station. In fact, this suggestion is corroborated by the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. In the course of cross-examination, it is also suggested that the accused persons are the regular drivers and they have been driving their lorry in National Highway No.63 and 13. In fact, this particular suggestion has been admitted by this witnesses and as well as PW-8 - Venkatappa Naika, who laid the charge sheet against the accused persons after the investigation. Therefore, it goes without saying that these accused Nos.1 and 2 were very well known to PW-7 and PW- 8 even much earlier to the incident. Therefore, when CW-1 30 has turned hostile and that other mahazar witnesses have totally turned hostile to the prosecution. In the event where the Police could not able to trace the real accused persons, as accused Nos.1 and 2 have been known to the Police, chances of false implication also cannot be ruled out. Under the above said circumstances and in view of the Rulings of the Apex Court as narrated above, in my opinion, though the corroboration to the evidence of Investigating Officer is not an absolute or imperative requirement, but depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has to insist the corroboration to the evidence of the Investigating Officer. When it is shown on the basis of the evidence that the Investigating Officer can under certain circumstance avoid the statutory principles and also conveniently build up the case according to his interest in the case. It is not safe to solely base his evidence to convict the accused.
27. Looking to the above said evidence, in this particular case the non-conducting of Test Identification 31 Period and also the accused being shown to the complainant in the Police Station none of the witnesses supported the case, shows that the Investigating Officer has avoided the statutory principles and he has violated the natural way of conducting the investigation. Therefore, in my opinion, the evidence of such Investigating Officer cannot be made sole basis for recording the Judgment of Conviction. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed a serious error in appreciating the evidence on record. As such, the judgment of Trial Court requires to be interfered with. Hence, with these observations, I answered the point formulated by me in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following Order :
The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 9/2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal is hereby set aside.
Consequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 392 of I.P.C.
The accused are said to be in the Jail and they shall be set 32 at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
If any fine amount is deposited by them, the same is ordered to be refunded. The order of the trial Court so far it relates to disposal of properties, stands undisturbed.
Office is hereby directed to intimate the trial Court forthwith so as to enable the trial Court to send release order to the concerned Jail Authorities for release of the accused persons without any delay.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE hnm/Rbv