State By Mandya Rural Police vs Y D Sunil on 11 March, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State By Mandya Rural Police vs Y D Sunil on 11 March, 2010

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

IN Tm: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALO
DATED m1's ON "rm; 1 W DAY OF MARCI--1 29 rd L.'
BEFORE «   

TH 1:: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 1..NARAyA_NA"$§\;\A*i:yé§~>'   é
CRIMINAL APPEAL     

I3I13"I'WE3EN: T' V "  
S'1'A']'3El BY MANDYARURAL1éO1,1c:-3___ f-..:_ --    
   ' --. U  : A1'>I">1a:1..LAN'I'

(BY SR1 A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, "4:~:4I.<,fQ£-R=)   ~ _

Y.D.SUNiL._     _ p 
SON OF LATE D:EvA.RAJ  > K 

AGEED A13O:g*1*"2a_YE:AR55;;."--
YALIYURU 'a./11_.L.AOi«;v,.';  
MANOYA TA'i.,UK. ' '

 ' ,   _  :RI-rasRON1i>1«:N'I'
[BY SRI SRIOI-1AR=V.c;A.R.. -_AD\_/.)-"R

'i'}_--'i'I'317*"> C R:,,A. FiI';::._r)...£..i/S.378(1) & (3) (:R.RC. BY 'm1«: S'I'A'I'E

Pf PO R '1'I~--IF: S'1'A_'I'E PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BL12 COURT MAY
EH2 i>LI3AsEvD"*1'L3_ GRANT LEAVE TO FELE AN APPEAL AGAINST

'f'I--IE}. J1.;-I)(:;31vr1.4b:N*1~-AND ORDER DT.5~6--2006 PASSEI) BY THE
JMFC-A N1AN:L3\m_,1N C.C.NO.608/O5 A Acgumwc THE

V"R135rI>ONpEN.T/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/8.379 OF

 IPC.

  "':'1-«--EI_S APRIcA1. COMING ON FOR 1~11~:ARING THIS DAY. '1'm<:

 c:OI~_r_R<:f'frfA1'3;: E DEI,IVERE£D TH [-21 I«'OLLOmN(:.:

"K



JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed agaitlst the jLlClgi"11E3ll[ andlU1{t*i.(§i*..u(')'l' K1"-'/W"

aL:qL11t.l'.a1l passed by the trial C0u1"t clatied pg, I l\E0.608/2005 on the file ()fJ M F C., lVléir1cly;1.'l_L 0

2. "H10 facts (')f'1'.l1e (',a.s<-3 i'.(37bsi§_ st".e'1tk-':.r_.l 2111 l)i'wl0'§L,_¢13T_CE§ '1l'_1§a'11': on' 7.12.2000 at about 11.30 a.m. .l\/li21:'1ag_§c1' of the Panchamukhi C11e1V11'iCl<l1S Fs{;ctdi'y;l ._lndL1st.rial Area, TL1l3inal<.ere, l\/landya. v'l'alzg..l'<'"l0§igér;1_'a alleg.'mt. that one Chainpul.ly__bl*o'clifV:§1I1civ §)11e_Stit_e1i1ng macliim-'2 \,vere l<ept: in the l'a(:t()1j;} arid' look, "a.f_l,C1f -that one Visl'1wa1'1z1I:h was employed, saigl Vishw'a1fi2:f'l9.1"---2_1l"l'Oi' a :.~i;L1€lden Stopped (to:'11in_s_;' 110 work 'C1I1{V:1('i'jiI'_l'.E}11yV 11.6' S'lTal1€C} that, he will not C01'l'lC to worlsz and uelftek' «':',\'«'\/YE) found that the above said mat.crial.=s were sl,0lé:n_ i7fpm" 'ills, hairy.

3. En..0l'§1e1' to prove the Case of the pr0seCu{ion._ only U16 {:_()1'iiplaiﬁallli as PW-l and 'c'lI"}Ol'.h{')1' witrat-ass PW -2 were c?§§éin'1i;1c%d and Ex.Pl to P3 wen: I11&1I'l{t3{l and lVEO~l Si01'l('.l'liIlg '».l;ll:?:1(".lllIlE? and MO-2 Chai1'1pL:lly wtzrc n'1a1'kc(l. C(J:1sl(lo;'mg___;' the K '~44 materials available on record, the t.l'i.':1l court founcl that with the available materials, accused cannot. be held guilty and thereby acquitted him ofthe charges.

4. I have heard the leaniecl H C G P for t'l:ie__';.z,1j}>el.la1lt' and leamecl c<:)L.mse1 lot' the 1'e.sp0n(lent»a(:(:usccl"~::t1'1tl"pe1-'2isecl 7 the entire materials on record.

5. PW~1 the complainant héisllltlepesecl Vinliiséi evideh(:e that on suspicion he 1of<l§lge(;l"'-eo,th~plaint against the respondenat. 'I'he'1*;*«:v;1ftei¢.vt,l1e';:-olice-called him and lianded over the art:.icles. l'.-ﬁt."t:hat»tiih'e--. Vt.h__e."r5s}3<)z'1de1'it was there. he 9t'.at"ecl that he W'c£S_VVOi;l:i.i-i1g"ii;1 the factory and further st.aIec.l that: he V'caii'idAeV.iifit;yth'e._a.i*t.icles. In the cr0ss--examinatioi1 he has cleplcsed t1i'af*~.,in»V.l:il'i'e factory one Smt.Yash0da was looking after t.1i€:~ affaii"'s"0l' the factory and one Sri Govirmlegowtla was 'm"cl)a:*:5e ofthe factory from 5 p.m. to E3 and i11(.3E1l'lfg(', of t.-11}: t.i1et'tfAa1"ticles was entirusted to Sri Vishwar1at;h and he was é£le3(.lW(.)i"l{.ii]g with them. It was SL1g'g(3Sl'€(il to this PW~ 1. that:

since the respondeiii was moving ii]. the mat1t:er of union, a K false Case has been instituted, which is denied by P\-V- 1. PW- } has admitted in the erosseexarnination that the said materials Cannot be carried by hand.

6. PWWQ also worker in the said l'ac:t.oiiy';"«fl-lef he-1:3 stated that the respondent, ehainpully and sti.t;<:»':1__i':i':g:',_I "ma-:i(:l"lii1"e« .. and police have "recovered the saidV=__artielefs.7, li1l"tl9ie""ei*c:¢3sw examination he has stated that -there' 1'1C}'HSi,IVL-E.p_l(2iC:4i1 lash» against. the respondent and till't,od-a_y thelifespondent is working in the factory. that. there are cases i*el2-1i'.i,1'1g t.o1U7=:i,ion' las -age1,ii1sl. -the i'espox1clen1_.

7. Onthe _basi_s t;hed'e\'}idei'1ee of PW--1 and PW~2, it cannot laesaid beyon'd'l'easonab1e doubt that the respondent act of theft as alleged by the pioseeution.

'l'heil}1rolSee1itloi1_ i':§'2'equii'ed to prove the guilt of the 21(.'.C1.1SC(l heyondllall =i{eas'o11ab1e doubt. Both the witnesses are the ._l'er1ipVl..oyr:r;js of the factory. Because the respontlent was rn.o".»--'ii'i--g in the matter of the lxabour Union, it (ta1'1.m")1. be ll ' l3lI'.LEél"}<3Cl aside that the easeﬁs foisted against. the respc)::'.1cle.t1E,. '..II

8. Under the cii"cu1:nst.anCes, the trial czourti is _§i:_t;'s'-.if"i::'C§._i'i:1 mcording order of acquittal against the respc§n'dt:i';i:ii_'~Q"

impugned judgment and order of Ei£?C,i»'LJ.'i'€I*{..'/ll do 1'lv(v)'J'[I"'{'}E1]}VVV§'€j_f', any intc3r'fei'e1'1ce.

9. In the result, this appeal __i_::_su"iiVz;1':3.1_»e to "be _ci.is1nisse>c.i arici it is accordingly disrnissed, VA Z al<c.i°'"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court