rm HOWISLE llu. 35'. fiacaaaagi-éajs:.AVV
gmméza {*r5_m_7 '
The State of
By Kasdur Poli:_§e-
(By sax-x'a1%.iA1'=M>.i§é1."N;-%észaz:A3Ada1.'SPP.) V
éflfl
1.
V V
'-S] 'o
"13 Crass, n
@ Bhandaxy,
,0 Viicnchappa, 22 years,
Mason work, Amb% Hagar,
V "}{--ad" III'.
Vigiaya S] 9 Eshwarappa,
20 Years,
Working in Cycke Shop,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Kadur.
'V APPELLANT.
9.
Rfo.
4. Ravi
S / o Kailodappa,
20 years,
ntcr,
Am cadkarnagar,
Kadur.
5. Rama,
S/o Rangaswamy,
19 years, 4*" Cross,
Shankarapura,
Chikmagalur.
Umesh @ Papanna, Vv
S/o Sundaxa Pm-ja1i._,
(100133, 4th C1038, ::::f" _ . "
sham<a:apwszé;.«~..V ~ 'r
S] o Rajzzgaswamy; " '
Auto Dxivcr,'4fh C1105-s','-- "
Sha11karap'u_r'a,.V .
R /
«(By_Smt Mahesh, Adv. for R2 to 4 65 8)
_ % ' ;'I'11is Criminal Appeal is fihad under Section 373(1) 85 (3)
1 by the SPP praying to gant leave to file an appeal
"against the judgment dated 7.3.2901 passed by the Add}.
" Sessions Judge, Chikxnagalur in S.C.No. 48/96 acquitting the
é,i*'u_xated "'12ear.._':I"a:z2 §a}i Thandya within the limits of Kadur Police
. P.W.1 ---- Ch1kkan' na was working as Coolie,
Gowda was Working as line agent, P.W.1 1 ~----
Murthy as a cashier and P.W.12 ---- Krishnaznurthy as a
According to the prosecution case, in ail there were
".20 persons worlfimg in the company and they used to sell smack
respondents] accused £01" the ofibncc S:§:§§i3'.on
395 rjw 341!-=0. ‘ ” ” ‘
This Criminal Appeal
Barm:urma1hJ., delivemd the foBowifl33$t’;.,, H . ~ . ” .
Being aggrieved by thc, of dated 791
March 2001 in Sessi¢;1rM passed by the
lcamcd Addifip,.n}9l.__ J§;dge%,_ Chg: rum acquitfing
nine accusgzci “‘i79__:r ()f5¢_:x;;_£:::_sV under Sections 395
r/w 34 1pc. ._ ”
The b1:ieAf’fact§ consideration of the present
appeal followén V
prosecution, Laxmi Toddy Company is
53:;
and bring back the caah collected. As per the “case
on 10.2.1995 and 11.2.1996, the line agents en
cash of Rs. 245.000/~ by the end of:1~1*11, tFe1¢ruaIy! M u t i
the same to the cashier —- PIW. 1 1.
this amount was kept in an tile’Ofi;iee:o:..;’it.i.s'”statedt’
that on that night, i”-‘.W§..1 steeping the ofice
whereas P.W.2 and the next room. In
the intervening night 01:’.-1 at about 2
a.m. or so, it heard the lmoclcing
sound of nvhen they enquired, who
it was, -lxeply. It is alleged that, afier some
time, ‘ohtside, asked P.Ws.1 and 10 to
open :the_§1oo:t; eved-en feresm, they forcibly entered the ofioe,
. jxoyvder eyes of the persons in the ofice and
robbed not only the cash but also a
Watch 10 and also other artickes —- MI). 4 to 22, 25,
25, 27 Went away. After hearing the cries of the inmates of
[‘”£1_;e on arrival of the other peopic, noticing serious
V’ injiixxies on RN. 1 and aiso injuries on P.W.10, they are taken to
.4 the hospital and thereafter, P.W.1 lodges the complaint to the
poiioe about the incident. The investigation p,
5
statements of various Witnesses are recorded, the accused are
arrested on various dates and certain recoveries are to
have been made £00333 them on their voluntary
completion of the investigation, charge sheet
10 accused.
3. It is to be noted ‘viiaratgs accused
No.1 is concerned, is spfimp {sued to 13¢ Vsbsconcling.
Be that as it may.
4Q of the charges, as the
accused denied claimed to be tried, they are
tried ‘Sessiens .I’§0.v48/ 1996. In all 12 witnesses have
. Atbectibgt am?’ }’;;3e€1«_hy and Exs.P.1 to 21 and 54.03.
1..
A V the evidence on record rather lack of
‘.evisde1:tce,t trial Court has given benefit of doubt to the
acquitted them. This judgment of acquittal is
K in the present appeal.
5″‘
6. Sri HM. Nawaz, the learned Additional
Prosecutor taking us through the e:u1:ire evidegiiee
that, the appreciation of evidence by__the._1ean1ed ‘ x’
is illegal and contrary to the evidence. $L11)A1I1<i'fTic¥i::V[j:§t1§i12~d.}&S
accused No.8 was former empi.oye.e of he L'
Was known to the Witnesses and they
have positiveiy identified of the culprit. It
is further contended thet of accused No.8,
the mic: of light and they have
been certain Iecoveries of
the AV _' including cash and
wrist watehef recovered. This recovery of the
articles aaceused on their volunta;ry statement clearly
ddeonfiects»-."the'm with crime in question and as such, g;ivm' g
"'hein;fit– iiay the ma} Court is tmjustified. It is also
trial Court has made much fuss about non
'pméucfloeé of the documents like employment of the witnesses
dediibt their credibility. On these among other gvounds, it is
.,._"V&:"Codx{11ten<ied that the impugned judgment of acquittal being not
u only illegal but perverse is liable to be set aside.
i it is rather for these witnesses to see the
of accused NO.8 and identify him later
by the? accused before entering the premises and as such,
V' there was no light. It cannot be forgotten that the
.._Wineident has taken piace at 2 am. and the witnesses — P.Ws. 1,
and 10 themselves admitted that they were in deep slumbers.
possibility of P.W.1 and 10 identifying him. No doubt.-flee trial
Court has rejected the evidence of the other
including P.Ws. I to 10 on the ground
pertaining to their employment ha§¥e~'a,!.so ' f
but we do not agree with so far as rejectienjjv
Wimesses are concerned only
of certain documents. for2gotteni–:t.3_;a§jf?p.W.1 was
seriousiy injured. So some injuiies
though simple in .netuIe.-"' that at the earliest
point of complaint and set
the inveetieatzioii aejjsuch, the presence of P.Ws. 1
and 10 cannot However, if we peruse the
evidence of Ws.' and chronobgical events, in our
in the prosecution case itself, the electricity was
It is further admitted by P.W.1 that immediately after entexing
5~<~
'Aime xrseitnii 6f.'_the eiiitience states that he could identify the
a¢i¢u§¢e.s:$§ee§#%s fiygoioe and that is why the ma: Court lightly felt
'i11fereneeV__Athat accused No.8 was known to P.Ws. 1 and 10
In the absence of any such material and on the face of
jngggimbability of P.Ws. 1 and 10 "seeing the accused and
it idenfiljring them, the doubt expressed by the trial Court
the premises, the accused who were 15 to 20
temporariiy blinded P.Ws. 1 and 10 by
in their eyes. If the chilly powder is ' f
cause burning sensation and as sueh,
witnesses to identify thexeaftet. it tot
noted that, immediately the chilly
powder, the accused to these people with
clubs and as both _these'" it themselves admit
that then: wfere and in fact P.W.1
suggests Itticenscious. If that is so,
there Wéis n_pi.' $1' these Witnesses to specifically
idenfify accused No.8, who is said to
be kngawnto ttlerzi "i5'u1thei, it is to be noted that I-".W. 1 dtming
neeessityuf Zshtiwing employment of accused No.8 so as to draw
regarding the identify of the accused, cannot be said as either
123
recovery, we find that the trial Court was justifietiV:’ifiL:’–
benefit of doubt to the accused.
12. Even on mconsidemfioifi of [five 3
find that the prosecution has fai1ed to bring fl1e c&f1a1’Vge
against the accused beyond doi1?<)Vt"a;';ii of thé
same, we find that thenefino appéfl. Vficcordingly
the appeal is rejected as V'