Karnataka High Court
State By Adugodi Police Station vs A K Mohammed Nayaz Abdul Karem on 10 September, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNRTAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THEM?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008
BEFORE
was HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.sREEDH3R Ré¢ff:f~
Crl.A No 41 QEm3B05f""*3~
BETWEEN V « u
1 sTA$E BY ADUGODI<Q0§ICE STR$IO§ 5DJ_ Eu
f : u.. Aé§fiLL%NT
(By Sri: BHAvAN:a§INsm:s9P;*_ '» «
AND : u * * ;V'A*
3.;A K MGHAMMED NAYAZ.ABDUL KAREN
*N0;61,'sEgTaA@EA«LAyoUT
R;$;%NAgAgg_" " =
mmgaam
.2: NAyAz'@»NAYAJuLLAKHAN PEERKHAN
*~'ifio;n13/14;"CHAMUNDINAGAR MAIN ROAD
»_ _R;T, fiAGAR
VHEANGALQRE
' 3 Muééaé @ SAYED AMBER
PEERKHAN,
WCEAMUNDINAGAR
MAIN ROAD
R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE
RES?ONDENTS
(By Sr: : MOHAMMED SAYEED~ADV.)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S. 378(1) & (3) CR égeqéy
THE STATE 9.9. FOR THE STATE PRAYINQ THAT THESV
HoN'eLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRAN? LEAVE To_"g
§ILE AN APPEAL AGRENST _eHE JUDGEMENT 33?,
15.7.2004 PASSED BY THE xxw'gADDL;_.sLq,,
BANGALORE CIT? IN S.C.NO. 38s{2o01;'AcQuIT$INe
THE RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED OF THE oEFENcgs'P/uis.=_
397 R/W sac. 34 OF xpes, THE APPELLAN?wSTATE- PRAYS TBA? wag ABOVE oRDsR»&AY'BE'sET'As1DE. This fippeél taQofiine"en for heeting this day; the court delivered the foliewing:
rTheteeee=efathe*pEosecetion that en 21.3}20$1 fit iiyifl e.m. A.l accompanied by A.2_ eeteredtgtthe house of P.W.6 '"w_ (e§mQ1aipafit)"~on -------- the pretext that he is °g Sefittgto",Check the furnitures and door %:gt¢h§e;eA.1 and AJZ gagged the meuth of t", P.WI6TPwith a .handkerchief threatenefi, her t'_Mith a knife and took one pair of ear x ":,_etuds and ring. F;W.6 "was locked inside the room, A41 and .A.2 went away. When P.W}6 Cried the nighbours got aiefted, they saw .A.3 and .A.2 going, tfie§;iQe§é_ chased. A.2 escaped W_andR"*§;id gwoe*d apprehended and eight gold rings} ode péif of' gold 1nati,one paiig of ~ear_ 3tedE,--'onewd bracelet, one Tfitan wfitob and one ladies watch. marked at I£;O;4§;t§fI1§';were seized from the..V..§:Q.55eeVe':Loj1 P.W.6 had ideniifiee§,fi§e'defifioieey at the spot. Ali was firodgced dt :59 time of complaint. On the'=inform§tioe" fron1.A.l,A43 is arrested .d"Qfi d3C,3;200i Mend ddddd A.2 was arrested on In fihe complaint it is stated thét cash V"»of Re§i0O90/-, two titan watohee, one ladies Vddwafioh and 8 gold tinge, one bxacelet ia said be stolen. However, except the ladies watch all the articles were seized from 3.1 at the spot. On the voluntary instance of A.2 ladies P.W.l to P.W.3 and P.W.6 with regard to the incident and apprehension sf A.1 near ihe sect '7':
was apprehended and pmodfiééd at tee time 5% by the fieoplel ml: , complaint by P.W.6.V f,¢g§ {Q "16 :wé;eu recovered front A.l an§r,§.W;6e'iden{ifiee aei articles robbed fremrthelfiefige. The evidence of :>.w.i1<:o) is The article M.O.2G ie,*ieentiiie@:rgelfbeleeging to her. Therefarfe 'e.§:1.dence against A.2 and else ieefipifieerien of A.2 as a culprit is ciinchinglyvieetebliehed. Since there is no eyidehce aeain$t.A.3 acquittal of A.3 is sound ' end preperl However, the trial court grossly 'erred ifi eequitting A.l and A.2 against whom there ie clinching eviéence beyond reasonable lVnddubt to prove their guilty. Accordingly; the appeal is allowed. The iorder of acquittal against Accused Ne.l and 2 is set aside.
/"\ Rccused No.1 and 2 are convicted"fe§Ren offence punishable under sec. 397 fifw See: eat of E.P.C. and sentenced to sgffef Rfiie fer a period of 10 years and u:¢f*§ag-;3_i::5§e?¢g Rs . 50, 000/ -«each { RupeeVe--.L' 'f'efr 2::3§v~=.;s';a;:a'c*VV~ each" ' only), in default to $u§fetHS.I. for 3 period of 2 years.
Gps*A