Karnataka High Court
Smt Leelavathi vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2009
Between:
Smt.Leelavathi
W/o Kantharaju
Aged about 25 years
R/at Behuru Mandya
Channapatna Taluk
Ramanagar District ... Appellant
(By Sri.K.A.Pasha, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
By Sanjaynagar
Police Station
Bangalore
Rep. by State Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore ... Respondent
(By Sri.B.Visweswaraiah, HCGP)
*****
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order and the judgment
passed in S.C.No.637/2007 dated 2.1.2009 on the file of
the City Fast Track (Session) Judge, FTC-IX) Bangalore
City - convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and
sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a
2
period of three years and to fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default to pay fine amount she shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence punishable under Section 454 IPC and
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three years and to fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default to pay fine amount shall further undergo S.I. for
a period of three months, for the offence punishable
under Section 380 IPC.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The appellant (accused) was tried for offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 436 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused for an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused for offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. Therefore, she is before this Court.
2. I have heard Sri K.A.Pasha, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for State. 3
3. The accused was tried for following charge:
"1. That on 23.10.2006 between 1.15 and 2.15 p.m., at house No.S-1, 33/4, 2nd Floor, Geetha Residency, New BEL Road, C.M.Halli, Sanjayanagar, Bangalore, you committed house trespass by entering into the above said building in the possession of the complainant - Sri. Prabhu Swamy in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
2. That on the above said date, time and place, you accused committed theft of Rs.32,800/- cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
3. That on the above said date, place and time, you accused committed mischief by setting fire to the front door of the above said house intending to cause destruction of the above said house, which was ordinarily used as human dwelling or as a place of custody 4 of property and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC and within the cognizance of this court."
4. PW1 - Prabhuswamy is the husband of PW2 - Annapoorna. It is established from evidence of PW1 and PW2 that accused was working as a maid servant in their house. At the relevant time, they were residing in house No.S-1, 33/4, 2nd Floor, Geetha Residency, New BEL Road, C.M.Halli, Sanjayanagar, Bangalore. PW1 and PW2 have deposed that on 23.10.2006 between 1.15 and 2.15 p.m., theft had taken place in their house. PW1 had gone to K.C.Palace club where he was working as a Manager and his wife (PW2) had gone to her beauty parlour in Sanjaynagar. During the afternoon at about 1.15 and 2.15 p.m., their neighbour, namely, Vijayalakshmi had informed PW2 that smell of gas was emitting from their house and there was some sound. PW2 reached the house and noticed that theft has taken place in their house. PW1 also reached the house. Some of the household articles like beds and 5 mats were partially burnt and window panes had developed cracks. On opening almirah, they found that 19 items of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.32,000/- were missing. PW1 was having one key. The other key was used by his wife (PW2). They had also given a key of main door to accused who at the relevant time was working as maid servant in their house. PW1 has deposed that after stolen properties were recovered, they identified the same in police station. The evidence of PW2 (wife of PW1) is more or less similar to evidence of PW1. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that PW1 and PW2 had no grudge or enmity against accused. In the first information, they have not stated that accused committed afore stated offences. During investigation involvement of accused was suspected and she was arrested.
5. The accused made voluntary statement and led the Investigating Officer and Panch witnesses to the terrace of Block 2B of Akashavani Quarters. It was a 6 four storied building. The accused took out a flower pot from terrace of the building and produced gold ornaments and cash. The accused had concealed the stolen gold ornaments and cash in a flower pot and covered the same with mud. The recovered stolen articles are marked as M.O.2 to M.O.22.
6. The prosecution has also examined PW4 - Ramesh, an independent witness who was present when stolen gold ornaments and cash were recovered on the information volunteered by accused. The evidence of PW7 - Nataraj R.N relates to arrest of accused and voluntary statement made by accused and recovery of stolen gold ornaments and cash on the information volunteered by accused. The evidence of witnesses does not suffer from any discrepancies. The stolen gold ornaments have been identified by PW1 and PW2 on the following day of recovery. The stolen gold ornaments and cash were recovered within four days from the date of incident i.e. on 27.10.2006. On the following day, i.e. 7 28.10.2006 duplicate key (one of the keys - MO.24) was recovered from possession of accused. The accused has not disputed that she was working as maid servant in the house of PW1 and PW2. She has denied her involvement in theft and also denied that one of the keys was given to her by PW1 and PW2. As could be seen from evidence of PW1 and PW2, they had no grudge or grievance against accused. In the first information, involvement of accused was not even suspected. It is only during investigation her involvement was suspected and she was arrested. After she was arrested, she had given voluntary statement which led to recovery of gold ornaments and cash (MOs.2 to 24). The accused also produced duplicate key of house of PW1 and PW2 from her possession.
7. The learned counsel for accused would submit that PW1 and PW2 were not taken to police station to identify stolen gold ornaments immediately after they were recovered. The learned counsel would further 8 submit that independent witnesses had been secured when stolen gold ornaments were recovered.
8. The stolen gold ornaments were recovered on 27.10.2006. PW1 and PW2 were working. In the circumstances, it is probable that they had not gone to police station on the following day i.e. 28.10.2006. The prosecution has examined PW4 - Ramesh who is an independent witness. PW4 has deposed that on 27.10.2006 when he was proceeding in front of Sanjaynagar police station, the police called him. At that time, accused was in police custody. The accused led Investigating Officer and PW4 to the terrace of Akashavani Quarters and thereafter led to Block 2(B), which was a four storied building. The accused took out a flower pot and produced gold ornaments and cash (MOs.2 to 24). PW4 has identified stolen gold ornaments before the Court. During cross-examination, PW4 has admitted that he knew accused before the 9 incident of theft. PW4 had no grudge or grievance against accused to depose against her.
9. On over all appreciation of evidence, I find accused being maid servant had committed theft. The accused had committed theft of 19 items of gold ornaments (MOs.2 to 21) and cash of Rs.32,000/- (MO.22) from almirah of house of PW1 and PW2. The accused had carried MO.2 to MO.22 in a plastic bucket and she had concealed the same in a flower pot on the terrace of building situate in Block 2(B) of Akashavani Staff Quarters. There is no dispute that stolen gold ornaments and cash belonged to PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding identification of gold ornaments (MOs.2 to 21) does not suffer from any discrepancy. On the following day of lodging the first information, PW1 had given the detailed list of gold ornaments stolen from their house. We find that the description of gold ornaments recovered on information volunteered by accused and description of 10 stolen gold ornaments furnished by PW1 and PW2, are one and the same. The learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. The learned Trial Judge due to paucity of evidence has acquitted accused for offence punishable under Section 436 IPC.
10. The learned counsel for accused submits that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for offence punishable under Section 454 IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. The learned Trial Judge has ordered that substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.
11
11. The accused was working as a maid servant in house of PW1 and PW2. They had trusted her. She had betrayed their trust. She had stolen gold ornaments from almirah which were as many as 19 items. She had also stolen cash of Rs.32,000/-. It appears, accused had set fire to make it appear that everything in house was burnt in an accidental fire. The learned Trial Judge due to paucity of evidence has acquitted accused for offence punishable under Section 436 IPC. The commission of offence was premeditated and precalculated. It is not an offence committed at the spur of moment. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce sentence. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB