Karnataka High Court
Rafiq vs The State Of Karnataka By Kote Police on 3 July, 2008
Crl.R. P.NO.-'$56 g 2005
- 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03180 DAY OF JULY 2OO8,___
BEFORE » I _
THE HOIWBLE MRJUSTICE A.S.PACHH§§I'iII§I*I':.I:I" "
Crl.R.P. NO.456l»20()5 " :7' I
BETWEEN
RAFiQ
s/0 JABBAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
MAsON,R/O KUMI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT V ' j PETITIONER
gm' SR1. O LAKSHMEESH RAO', 'A;Ov.';._ f
AND I
THE STATE OF .KA'Rr{A:IjA'KA ' « -
EIY KOTE POLECE' '
SI-IIMOGA ' _ I V. . ..
SHIMOGA DISTRICT RESPONDENT
I 1371 svRi:;A.iv;.RA'a.qAKR1sI:f¢;é,' GOVT. PLEADER)
. Tilzivs:'C§§_L.:§1=v.ia*1LED U/8.397 AND 401 CR'.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITICJNER PRAYING THAT THIS HOMBLE COURT MAY BE
T . PLEASEO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
- 'OVPASSED ACAIIQST THE PETE. IN cc NO. 33/2002 PASSED BY THE PRL. {SJ
..(sRu.DN}..AAANO CJNL, SHIMOGA D'I'.29.3.20(}3 AND THE ORDER DATED
_ [.13-$22005 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, 1 FAST TRACK COURT,
..__"V"'sH1[1v1OOA IN CRLA. NO. 24/2003.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Cr}. R.P.NO.456 [ QQOS
..3_
cash. The complaint Ex.P.1 was Iegtistemd
No.111/2001 and he sent the ccmg}1&int&(E§(..i3.'i)'c.--Vasnd £1;;cde':f«j:1'é>
(Ex.P.5) to the Magistrate and then
mahazar (Ex.P.2) and at thatfivfixe sized
21.8.2001, he arrested Acc1;seid~.._ 3~4_cs.1'"' cm and on
intermgation, recorded Exs.P.7 and
R8. The accused led thccpcsiccé to the house of
PW.4, who i.e., Accused Nd]
before the Omex Watch and the
seized under the mahazar
Ex.P.3. Vddiie 4' of the witnesses and
thexeafiez' LA No.3, who was in the judicial
§zc'.'i23/2001. As the Accused No.4 was
the injury certificate of PW. 1 as per
fthe completion of the investigation, he filed the
. i .. « .4 _'chargeshce_f;
During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5
VT their evidence, got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to R8
"and MOs.1 to 3. On the closure of the evidence, the statement
of the accused was recorded. under Section 313 Cr.P. C. They
CrI.R.P.NO.456(2005
-4-
have taken the defence of total denial and have not led any
evidence in their defence. On appreciation of the on
record, the Trial Court convicted the petitionexj
No.2 for the ofience under Section 394
sentenced them to undergo ixnprisonimentijfqr 'months, to i
pay a fine of Rs.1,000--00. Aggrieved ibylthc confiitction
sentence, Accused Nos.1 and before the
Sessions Court, shimoga; ._Algf>i;3eal M24') 2003. The
said appeal came to be Accused No.2
and coIL'§1;Ini.ng" of 'petitioner. Aggrieved by the
we petitioner has approached this
Court by way of ;eV*ision}".
'A ' n the learned couneel for the petitioner and
tli;-:_ The points that arise for my
V _ consfi.-erationv
.. 3) "Whether there is any illegality or pexversity in
_ H the impugned onder 'P
(2) What order ?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
was no identification parade and the evidence of PWK1 is not at
all reliable as reganis the identity of the petitioner and therefore
K
Cri.R.P.NO.456-[$2005
he submits that the 'Trial Court was wrong
yetitioner. So raise, it is his contention .f11at j
has not been satisfactorily pmved:":.a:u%_1:tof
recovery alone is not suficiex1't,§31jV' 'pe1'it:io;.t1e1*:.t'
He has placed the reljanee uponavvtiecisjon 5: Court in
AIR 1982 so 839 (MoIxaz}la1'é--. v. State of
Mahamshaa) wherein, ixflihat the victim was
not known and in the
absence of mere idemity of the
accuseci:.;V§;')':ye'V_t1t1e'uficbuet is vaiueless and cannot be
relied 4' _
. The the evidence led by the prosecution
reveals {ifiate _re}.eva::::t witnesses are the victim (PWJ),
¢Vi'>§,VV'?».=s;rho pmduced MOs.2 and 3 at the instance of
V the the investigating Oficer (PW5). PW.2 is an
iiiiiness for the mahazar Ex.P.2, the seizure of MOI
' m:;n"r:nc scene of occurrence. in my opinion, the said evidence
.._ h-as no relevance as there is no incfiminating circumstance
found at the spot to connect the accused. it is relevant to note
that the pefitioner has not claimed M032 and 3 as belonging to
5/"
C.'£'l.R.P.NO.456{2005
-5- 7
him. So also, PW.1 during his evidence stated what
were snatched by the accused, whilehe it j
Jayanagar in the evening at about
identified M082 and 3 and it hated is the
Oraex Watch, Whereas Mt).3 is " ' that
a person who wears -the calculator can
identify. Hence, the evidem:c».o:i' PVJ,' the accepted. These
two material the calculator were
recovered at 1, in pursuance of the
hy _';3w_5. it is Accused Nos. 1 and
2, who led' Viaanchas to the house of Mohan
{PW.4),, who 5409.2 and 3 and stated that Accused
it V.No.A1,"*i.e.,?the"t'peti1ioziei9iiherein sold the Watch for an amount of
he has no bus charge to travel to his
villa' context, had given M02 to PW .4 by receiving
of Rs. 150-00. So also, the calculator was also
by PW.4 stating that it is the first petitioner who gave
few days earlier to the recovery. The incident has taken place
20.8.2001 and M032 and 3 were seized under the mahazar
Ex.P.3 on 5.12.2001 i.e., within four months of the incident.
PW.4 is specific in his evidence that he knew Accused No.1, i.e.,
L
Cr1.R.P.N0._f456{2005
-7-
the petitioner herein, who was working with himss
as regards this cireunistance is availsxbiein tiie PiW.4i f
and has been satisfactorily proved.
herein was not working with notvjbeeni "fhem
nothing elicited in the cross ex:-taiiiination 'P'ai,I.A4 disbeiieve
the evidence. So when by PWJ as
the articles belonging ivere snatched on
20.8.2001 from PW.4 at the
instance Zita; imy opinion is a strong
citenms*.tiance.A it -- the accused with the crime.
Despite t1ie..V_i'éet not in a position to identify the
accused; the veeigie'nce inf recovexy of the articles and more
it iinm a person who was closely acquainted
is sufficient to prove the guilt beyond
reaso1iable- Accepting the principle laid down by the Apex
even discarding the evidence of PWI1 about his
of the petitioner before the Court, in my opinion the
V. ievicfence of PW .4 and the recovezy of MC)s.2 and 3 in the context
1.01" the close acquaintance of the petitioner with PW.4 is snificiem
to pmve the guilt.
CI'i.R.?.NO.456gf2005
,3- 7
7. Ftuthermore, the Trial Court and-;;i1so.'e
Appellate Court have eoncuzrently of j
conviction of the petitioner. it is \ve1;I1«esté£biisItec§
that the powers of revision vestett 'gecfioit
401 Cr.P.C. are limited and theiievidence is
not permissible, unless vthete. on the face of
the record or that the is wrong and
there is ' Taking into
eonsidemfioo xettdeion and the concurrent
.'fiI1diI1gSi Of I am of the opinion that the
9e'£itioner 'has any grounds to warrant the
interfe.re:1.oe. Iii that' of the matter, i answer the Point No.1
, 9... ..... d to pass the following:
ORDER
' A [the petition faiis and is aocoxdingly dismissed.