Karnataka High Court
State By Kadugondanahalli Police ... vs Manjunatha @ Lokesh @ Mothi on 14 October, 2008
1_ ANn_f"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKF. AT BPKNGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY 09 OCTOBER 290E',
BE FORE'.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTXCE A s EACEEEEEEE, 3 ". "
CRIMINAL AEEEAL No.:§48 OE 2QG§=E"
<?fWE%
CRIMINAL APPEAL N0}1449 GE 265$ '."W
IN cgamau NO.1448/O£ EV 7;
BETWEEN: A' A '
STATE BY KEEuEbfiEANAEA:L:_=[V¥
POLICE STATIONEV E-'-~' E
APPELLANT
(BY SE1 A"v"EEMAERIsHNA, SPP)
._'fiAE$ENéiHAf@,LoKEsH @ MOTHI
'<sxofsE:,KEIsHEApEA
AEEa,ABouE_E1'YEARs
REs:DING.NEER SAMDAYA EHAVANA
V. GOVINDEPURA VILLAGE
Vu,*BANGALQRE.
RESPGQDENT
'" . (BY SRIYUTHS ARUN BEAT FOR N s JAIN, A9VS.,)
CRL.A. FILED U/S 11(2) OF P.O. ACT BY THE
§E'sTATE 9.9. FOR. THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS
v'HoN'ELE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DT. 27.3.04/30.4 .04 PASSED BY THE'. IV
ADDL. C. C. 5: 8.0'. , MAYOHALL UNIT, 8' LURE IN
S . C. NO. 382/ 03 TO THE EXTENT OF RELEASE THE
RESPONi)E1NT~--ACCUSED {US 4 (3) Of' THE PROBATION
OE' OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 & PASS APPROPRIATE
SENTNECE OE' IMPRISONMENT & FINE PRESCRIBED
UNDER THE LAW FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
IR (fink. NO. 1449/O4
BETWEEN :
STATE BY KADUGONDANAHALLI
POLICE STATION *»'> 'a_=-L= }
;~AEPELLANT
(BY SRI A v RAMAKR:sfifiA;gs§9;
MANJUNATHA e Lfl[email protected]'V"W
s/0 SRI KR1sHNA?3A*g; *_",*,-V
AGED ABOUT 21i¥EARs." ". }
RESIDING NEAR QAMUEAYA BHEVRN
GovINQApURA*v:LLAsE_Vm_--'
BANGALORE' ' ' * *-'a'
' .. % RESPONDENT
(BY sRIyUTfis.ARfiN BHAT FOR N S JAIN, ADVS.,)
#" _ "¢R§;§; FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY
' THE swarm 9,P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS
HQNfBLE GQURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE To
FILE AN AEEEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT AND ORBER
OF RCQUXTTAL DT. 27.3.04/30.4.04 PASSED BY THE
4 IV ADDL'.«:_ C.C. & S.J., MRYOHALL UNIT, EVLORE,
" S.C'*. NO.382fG3 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
4 »REIvSPC!NDENT'*ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF
These appeals are coming on for hearing
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred these appeals challenging the judgement and order--eequittin§** the respondent for the offence pfinishahierk/$o 397 IPC and extending *ethe'i henetit":Fott_ probation.
2. The facts" reiefientfisf¢%*_the purpose of this appeal are as andef:_ 3*V On -1i;5{éao3- at flabout 5.30 p.m. PW.l Nanjafimag'waoed[»abefiti'65 years and PW.2 Rangamma° were hpropeeding near Vyalikaval ,_ Society; 'within. the jurisdiction of A"evKadugondanahalli police station and at that tine."theegrespondent. M accused came fronz the " opposite direction and sprinkled chilli powder xdkpon'*EW.i we Nanjamna and snatched the golden
-}ehain from the neck, golden ear rings and the "rifiolden thali, and at that time caused injuries to PW.1. It is thereafter' that PW.1 approached the police and PW.9 registered the_ complaint -- E3x.P.1 for the offence punishable U/S 394 1'80 and thereafter held _..__the investigation by visiting the occurrence and held the spot rrsahazar in the presence of attest3'.ng..'wi'itnevssee{".'_j_He, V recorded the statements of on 22.5.2003, ewxv «---~ appgéhebeee 'fthei' ' accused and produced arrest and interrogation efolunteered to produce the voluntary statement. ::.'v':r'¢;%orded. It is thereerft-erAVVV'itVt.e-t"thtetaccused lead the police and -- PW.6 and anotifher, togthe :shop of PW.8 and on his produced M.O.s 1 and 2 said to "'1l.;ai:%e_e«1£.~:«s't'«;;~;=_~nr% by the accused to PW.8. The . articles ""were seized under the mahazar -- the presence of PW.6 and another. .' Fairther, the accused lead the police and "attesting witnesses to a place and produced M.O.3 - the thali alongwith the hair and three keys from a hidden place and they were seized $4 under Ex.P.3 in the presence of PW.s 3 and 4. P.W.1 identified the accused and also» the seized articles and after completion"
investigation the charge sheet caee.jtotRbe'l lodged against the accused ¥ respondent herein; for the offence punishable ${$y§9?»l3Cv.:"l During the trial the firoeecutionoekamined PWs.l to 10 and in their eVidence_got Kmrked documents Ex§§;l to 3349;? and MtO.s 1 to 3. The statement oi_thg agguéed was recorded U/S 313 P':.C.VVvlliiie».:ha.ei'*-tVa'!;'en the defence of total denial end has not lead any evidence in his ._flde§ence'V bet; _ got _____ marked Ex.D.l, the dg*contradiction in the statement of PW.6. K'TheV trial Court on appreciation of the hlifmaterial on record convicted the respondent '?=for the offence punishable U/S 379 of IPC and "c after securing the report of the Probation Officer granted the benefit and aggrieved by the acquittal of the respndent for the A4 offence punishable U/S 397 of IPC the State has preferred Crl.A. N0.l449/04. Whereee; it filed Crl.A. NO.l448/04 challenging Qrent of ° the Probation to the respondent U/$h&t§3;nofrV the Probation of Offenders hot 1§58fg . .lt" "h
3. I have heand the learned Government Pleader and a1se'wJthg§e}eouneelV for the respondent. _h 4, ---- ~~Th¢x;*@Qintse athet; arise for my consideration'ére:rxvrl ~i.hj£l) lWhether the Judgement and 'h u7,order of acquittal of the u nfrespondent for the offence llfipunishable U/S 397 of IPC 15 . I illegal and perverse?
Vh(2) Whether the grant of probation in respect of the offence punishable U/S 379 of IPC by the trial Court is mi illegal and perverse?
5. It is the contention of the Govt., Pleader that the victinl ~ PW.1 M Nanjamma sustained injuries and the injury certificate}
-- £x.P.9 has been prouced and thereforefit_is'=u his contention that the trial ¢ofirfi.¢ommi:tes7 an error in convicting the res§cndenta£orjthe,f offence punishable U/S 5?? of iPC instead of the offence punishsbie§mufl$ih397 of IPC. Furthermore, _it is dhis coontention: that the offence comhifted by fine resnondent herein is severe a5a_§§gi§hgsi§ffg§ the imprisonment of more s¢h§fi7vg§§énifQea:sW and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, he submits_ that "thef trial Court committed an ierror in extending the probation. *.6,*N§er contra, the learned counsel for i"F the resbondent submits that the trial Cburt, éictaking into consideration the material placed f"=on record has rightly convicted the accused " for the offence punishable U/S 379 of IPC and on perusal of the report of the Prebationfiufi K Officer and the nature of the offence, the age and antecedents of the accused has grantee the probation. Hence, he submits that there is moot illegality' committed by" the»,trialluConrt-Xihg passing the impugned orders;
7. So far as the cohtention with regard to the commission"oi-théfOffence_U/S 379 of _ IPC is concerned, thQQgh_EWti states in her evidence that she sastained infuries at the time of snatchineo°the*:§oifien ornaments and thoughg she fias admitted in the hospital for the purpose of treatfient, the prosecution has V failefi to examine the doctor, who issued the ;?_injury_certificate ~ Ex.P.9. It is relevant to_'nQte*Cthata the injuries are- mentioned in iperson: who issued the said document. No :reason has been assigned by the prosecution as Ai"regards the hon examination of the author of the Ex.P.9. It is relevant to note that xi ID the records. Furthermore, the trial Court taking into consideration the agevhjahd antecedents of the accused and onf~ge§§e飧ha secured the report of the Prebationareffifficeriu and the perusal of the report reeeals rhst thee accused was aged about 2? years at the fiime of' the incident and he has got his grand perents, parents, unmarried hsistersfi gee _the entire family was sebsistifig¥§§fthe7eerhindfiof the unmarriedgsiste£$"e§ the eccused. The father of the a¢efisée,was present before the Cburt and wthio 2 "the accused is doing the work by_engagin§'himself in the building __ construction" labour work. The Probation dfi_Oificer=,had_ gathered the information with reeard to the character and antecedents of the
-Vaccueedi and taking into consideration the '"'fcircgmstances in which the accused was placed, fl}the trial Court came to the conclusion that in 'kicase if the accused is sent to jail again, there is a possibility of the accused uexing with other criminals and continue to be a mi H criminal even thereafter. Though, there was a criminal case in C.C. NO.24449/00 for the offence punishable U/S 324 and 5068 of[T".7£PC there was no conviction and therefore as there, was no previous conviction the learned JudQe_ * thought it fit to grant itheV benefit *9f} probation on the basis_of the report secg:aa*; from the Probation Officer. It is fie doubt true that the snatchino of the ornaments has become a social crime now akoaysfi but taking into consideration the fact that the accused was in custody for fiore than 2 12 months and that after the ineifient there is no allegation .~p about ithe irepetition of the crime by the ° 'a¢Cuse§;fI am of the opinion that it would be in Vtheieenosi of justice that the order of jppropationfihas to be confirmed. I do not find lA:flany,sort of illegality in the order of the ' 'trial Court granting the benefit of the "2 probation to the respondent herein. In the circumstances, I answer the points in negative and proceed to pass the following Order:
O R D E R The appeals are dismissed.
BN8.