Karnataka High Court
The State By Mandya West Police vs Prakash S/O Somaiah on 25 July, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2537/2006(A)
BETWEEN:
The State by
Mandya West Police ... Appellant
[By Sri G. Bhavani Singh, SPP]
AND :
1. Prakash S/o Somaiah,
Aged 29 years
Residing in front of RTO Office,
Mandya City.
2. Rangaswamy @ Swamy,
S/o Chikkanna @ Venkataswamy
@ Chikkegowda,
Aged 20 years,
Residing at 6th cross, V.V. Nagar,
Kallahalli Extension,
Mandya. ... Respondents
[By Sri M.Nagesh, Advocate for R-1 and
Smt.M.L.Srimathi, Advocate for R-2]
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
& (3) Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the Judgment dated 22.5.2006 passed by the
Addl. C.J. (Sr. Dn) C.J.M., Mandya, in C.C.No.156/2000
2
- acquitting the Respondents/Accused for the offence
P/U/S. 393 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for Orders this
day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for orders on the memo filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeking permission to retire, the matter was heard on merits by the consent of counsel appearing on both sides.
2. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mandya in C.C.No.156/2000 acquitting the respondents - accused Nos.1 and 2 of the charge levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 393 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief was that at about 5.30 p.m. on 29.6.2000, in front of Dayananda 3 Cycle Mart situated by the side of M.C.Road, Mandya, when PW.1-H.R.Punith a student aged about 14 years was proceeding on his bicycle towards Kallahalli, the respondents - accused by sharing common intention of committing robbery, wrongfully restrained PW.1 from going further, attempted to snatch the watch, cash and the bicycle from PW.1 and when PW.1 screamed for help, PW.2-Chandrashekar, PW.3-Shivalingaiah, the staff of Court at Mandya came to his rescue and they caught hold of the accused persons who were later handed over to the police. In respect of this incident, PW.1 lodged a report based on which the case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, PW.4-Halagaiah, Police Sub-Inspector, recovered razor from the possession of the accused and after conducting investigation, laid the charge sheet. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and placed reliance on Exs.P.1 to P.5 and marked M.O.1. 4
4. After hearing both sides and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate by the judgment under appeal, acquitted both the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against them. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State is in appeal.
5. I have heard both sides. Perused the records secured from court below.
6. As could be seen from the judgment under appeal, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not inspire the confidence of the Court with regard to the incident alleged. The learned Magistrate is also of the opinion that the possibility of false implication of the accused in the background of ill-will between the father of PW.1 and father of the accused No.1 who are staffs of court at Mandya, cannot be ruled out. The learned Magistrate has also held that the presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the 5 purported time and place of incident is highly doubtful as such they cannot be presumed as eye-witnesses.
7. As noticed supra, even according to the case of the prosecution, there was no accomplished act of robbery by the accused as there was only an alleged attempt on the part of accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence on record clearly establishes that PW.1 is the son of court staff in Mandya and similarly accused No.1 is also son of a Court staff in Mandya. PWs.2 and 3 are also staffs of the court at Mandya. The incident said to have occurred at about 5.30 p.m. on 29.6.2000. It is not forthcoming as to how PWs.2 and 3 who are staff of Court at Mandya could reach the scene of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. as the office hours of the Court would be up to 5.30 p.m. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.2 he was not in a position to identify two accused persons as assailants. He has been declared hostile. Thus the evidence of PW.2 would not establish the identity of the two accused persons as the assailants. The evidence on record indicates that there was some 6 rivalry between father of accused No.1 and father of PW.1. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate has assigned cogent reasons for not placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. The finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned Magistrate, as such, I find no ground to interfere with the said judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RS/*