Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka (Mudalgi Ps) vs Mohamad Salim Papa Parakute on 18 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAIKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE S DAY OP JULY 2011
P RE S E N T
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
A ND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1747/2005
BETWEEN:
The iSta te of IKarnataka
(Muclalgi P.S.).
by AddI. Pp., J3elgaum.
A pp e I I a n t
(By Sri. V.M.Banakar, Addi. SPP)
AND:
Mohamacl Salim Papa Parakute,
Age: 26 years,
Behind shah Complex,
R/o. Chikodi.
Re sp () fl dent
(By Sri, Shivaraj P. Mudhol, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed U,!s, 378(1) 3 (3> of
Cr.P.C. by the State PP. for the State praying that this
Hon 'hie Court may be pleased to grant leave to file an
appeal against the' Judgment and Order of acquittal
1 , \Z,_ ,
I ".-I--II L I
I , -- ,_ I '.N I, j I I Iii
CD L.
W -- :i
C - DID :
.
CD * CD C DO CE CD CD N) H CDC o CD l CD C
--
S C/) --
DO DO -- DID r DO DO
L) CD -- C
C CD x CD
CD• - C DC
C CD C C C
CIQ C -
C C CD C CD C-
r CD DC
DC C CD C DO CD -
C C) C CD
CD C CD C C DC
C -i --
CD C DC CD C Di
CD
cC
CD C DO C CD C) cC
. .. C-- DO
-- DC DC)
CD. CD CD DO
C N) C C C
C C C
Ci CD DC -- C-C) CD
C- c., C C
CD. -- -- CD C C)
CD a CD CD
-
a C CD
DC DC H CD
.- C- C C CD 0
CD C C C
DC a DO CD N) < CD
C
CD CDC.
C C CD C -
CD C- CfDC
DC
C
CC
C-
DC C
DO
CD DID
CD CD
DC
C CD
- CD
C
F1I
CD
C CD DC C DO
DC CD C N)
DID C o CD C
r
C C CD - CDC
a CD.
DC C C C CD
C) (i9 CD
C- CD DO
r cID CD C CD -c C
C• C CD -
CD C CD
C- Di C C CD C CD
rt DC C- C C CC) C
C CD DO
C cC C
C Cl CD
DO . CD C C Cl
r DI) C C
a CD C- CD DC GTQ C
CD CD a C
c DC
DC -- C
HEc D C CD
CD C P DO CD
i E DC
C Pj
C DC
a DC C CD
DC C
HcC
DO DO CD * CD DC
3
petrol and diesel and kept a sum of t38,000/- in the drawer. Around 08-45 p.m., five persons camc in a Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-23/N-7686 driven by the accused No.5 i.e., the respondent herein. Accused No.1 to 4 got down from the Tempo Trax and forcibly entered the cabin. Showing. the knife to thc complainant and the others, the accused persons asked them to move inside the adjacent room. One of the accused stabbed the complainant with the knife and asked him to give the key. The complainant gave the key. The accused took away ?.38,000/- from the drawer. One of the accused snatched away the gold chain of the complainant. The accused threatened the worker Achuta Kulkarni and snatched away his wrist watch. Thereaftet) the accused fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complaint has been lodged and after investigation chargc sheet has been filed against five accused for thc offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
4
5. At the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.l to 14 and Ex.P.1 to P.27 and M.Os.1 to 33 have been marked.
6. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has convicted the accused No.1 to 4 and acquitted the respondent herein i.e., A.5.
7. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-State has filed this appeal.
8. The learned Addl. SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar, contended that the impugned judgment and order, insofar as A.5 is concerned, it cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective, insofar as A.5 i.e., the respondent herein is concerned. He also submitted that there is evidence on record to show that the respondent herein has participated in the commission of crime and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondent. He also submitted that the respondent was 5 the driver of Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-23/N-7686 which was used in the commission of crime and a sum of ?.3,000/- has been recovered at the instance of the respondent from PW. 11 and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondent. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order, insofar as the respondent is concerned it cannot be sustained in law. Further he submitted that this Court has confirmed the conviction of accused Nc4,l to 4 in Crl.A.Nos.1755/2005 and 358/2005.
9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly acquitted the respondent and therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the FIR and the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 9 and 10 does not indicate the participation of the respondent in the commission of crime. Further he submitted that the recovery is not proved. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order does :3 0- 0 -- -- C?) CD CD CD 0 0- 0- 0- 0 0 0 0 o :3 CD CD CD 0 0-
a C) -
CC ) 0- -. - 0 CD CD
L< CD r CD 0
r :33
CL r- 0 --.
*
-- CD C CD -- CD
0- CL -i CD 0 CL
CD0-L010H - H *
CD :3 CD 0- --. 0- 0 CD
CD < :i :3 :3 Z :3 CD CD CC
CL CD
1 -- - CL --, --.
--•
--
CD -- CD
0 *
0- 0- -- 0 --
0- --. 0
CD 0 --
x CL 0 CD
--
0 CD 0-
:3 0- CD CD CD
E CD
-- --, -- - CD )
CD CD
0 CC CC CD
CD -- C/) a.
CC
CC 0 )
CD 0- 0 0
CD rt :3 0 :3 0 CC
- C?) --,
0- CD CD CL CC 0
--. 3i) CD CC CD CD CL
CC CD C/)
0 0 CD
0- CL a. . 0
CC CL 0 :3
CC CD 0- J)
CD CL ••
CC 0- 0 0- CD 0
r a. DL CD CD
CL 0
-- CD CL
CD CD
CL 0 :3. D CD CL :3
0- CD
0 0 0 CL
CD a. 0
0 Z - :3 CD
0- CL CD CD 1
DL 0- CC
CL 0
3)) . 3fQ CC --. (p3) CD
CC CD
0- . CC M CL - CL 0
3) CD CD 0-
C) -- 0 0
CT)) CT)) CC CD
0 1 0- . a. CL b. 0
0- -- 0- 3)) 0 CD a.
:3
(CT 0 CD 0 -.
CC CC
CD CL Ci) CD CC CC 0 CC
did not reCover .3OOOi from him, PW. 13 has stated
that the respondent was the driver of his Tempo Trax bearing RegNo.KA23/N7686. It does not mean the respondent has participated in the commission of crime. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record against the respondent. Therefore, the trial Court was lustified in acquitting the respondent. It does not call for interference. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
I 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/ 3UDGE sd/u JUDGE Mrk/ -