IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGPJQORE
BETWEEN
L Ra_m_ac11a_I.1d_aR-L1d.y,
S/o Narasimha Rfiddy, _ VA .4 V
Aged about 45 y’eai”S.p * _ 3. L
R/at Maxganakuntgy A
Bagepa1liTa1uk. A
2. Srinivas (z:,’)._Ni1agi1nib__aiSe<éne:i_',
S/'0 Aamayma Ready'; ' A
Age W-about 3Qye'a1fs., '
R] at _Da1ava.y_iepa11i;'« . _
CI"L§_19&1la*.11"1u1'.VP;4I9.fldE'tl, " _
Andra 'Pradeslrnf _ «-
3. 4;Narr::ndi’a’Réd’dy,
.f_ ‘S /;_~.:)_ Kuntasilb-ha ‘Raddy,
. A ‘._,.1 ~
. H n.ge,«.,. ab fit 22 years,
? “Ri’aa,t’K.isa:cg,:a;g.amaka1apa11i,
._ G6r§Lat1a.;1vi’anda1,
‘ VHi11I:.11.’I_i_3_.tJi’ Taluk,
4′ ” Aladrapradesh.
(At jarfisent R,’ at Golur ‘u’i.”.a g-,
” * Baéepalli Taluk) : Petitioner
. –!(;~’3y:Sr1, (LN. Raju, Advocate for
M/s Sshankarappa and Babu Associates}.
/QL - v a perio AND: State by Bagepalli Police, Rep by S.P.P.,
High C-eurt. Bul.di11g.., v_ _
Bangalore.
(By Sri. Honnappa , HCGP)
n 0 u c 0 _ 1 ” I . .
This C1’Lm1ne=.l e’..’1s10n.._. et’. or! filed. 1.1.. *-
us ;. ,.-,V, — I .
397 8:. 401 Cr.P.C praying to”e_ 91; aside” he Ju Vggnent an
£1-
scntencc of’ the 170,, Fast (Track Cour-tmfi, Koiar in ‘
Crl.A.Nos.16_l2003 as”f’18;!2QO3″‘=.dated 15.07.2005 and
Judgment and sentence of -the _C.LJ._’»V.(‘*r. Dn) 65 JMFC.,
Q
Bagepaili, (LC.No,2–83f’19@9_dated e=3=200
This __ 02iijé*f0r hea1*ing, this day the
,:t:n_1,.1’t, m;11_1__:t1:5c’ftJ!1oVir~if1j.g’:’ ”
\II’.»IJI:lI’-
petitiibarhrers’-~ have been convicted for an
ofienee rifider Section 392 IPC and are
of two years and six months
R”.-I.forv’six.1″inonfl1s, by an order of e011vi**”‘T1 “‘”1Ci sentence
. paseed by the Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn) dated am March 2003 in
“‘._ C.C’LA.No.283/ 1999. The said order of conviction and
” Sl:1’itE11C6 is confirmed in Crl.A.Nos. 16 and 18 of 2003 by
9. AL vac:/I:4′,z___
K v-‘
an order dated 15-7-2005 passed by the FastT’_I’r
Kolar and as such the petitioners have come
0
1343.0. . his
u.r u.-..p.p.-.1
111.
‘cu…
2.It is the case of the prosecfifidh eh
a. 9. out 8 9 “1. P.’…2 Pr–=**1n_
and P.W.6.Murthy were goiiig ‘Jeep I’§’i;£i;~4fjJ/Ivi.:T:44 to
Maraganakunte vfllage snack packets to
arrack shops’ persons came in a
jeep and prevented
+1…. .;V.’.’.’-“.Vi ‘-,.;’.._..,..«’:.3-.’.”‘ 4′..Q;.,.;.L;- .-…………..V..:I .. . …. ,. 43-… _: .
um yseuu _[J~EJi§bU1.H’,i u p1 L. Bung J.Ll.l.|-1,1 ‘IA ,_=m;u IUI l.U.i_
pullecivthefil he jeep; beat them with hands
am1..,foreiflb11v_ toekA”‘a§f£1y the jeep in which they were
V. – .a_1ohfi 3580 packets of arrack.
‘ dgéddr to establish the guilt of the accused the
preseeettien has examined P.W.1 to P.W.1O and got
~ marked Exs.P.1 to P.8.
4. P.W.1 Mohaboob Sab is an eye wimeee’–.to the
incident in question. He in his evidence
the ease of t. A % ‘
hostiie.
5. P.W.2.I\Tmmm’ is 1;.
case, he has lodged’. that the
petitioners have punishable under
Section 392. in named the first
accused 5ers’::’orie”:V’*Vo.f’ and has made other
“”” H . ‘our-“‘e’. In me course of
inveefige1fion,~oecused also came to be
‘A32
., fig»I’,Wv.3.Ramacha11drappa is the panch witness to
H “Ex~.P.”S.’V”«.V.”i?.W§?¥.Seshagi1irao is a panch witness for spot
Ex.P.3 and also seizure mahazar Ex.P.4.
7. P.W.5 ChB1’1d1’£-1 who has been referred to above
*:was the driver of the Jeep which was forcibly taken away
by the accused persons herein. pwas a
worker in the arrack shop. He was also in ;,-5: in
111.. _.vit1e11_e __a_w sated Lhat he too wag
W’ 1 P.w.5 auu I-‘.w.o au.1d :11. ‘*
stopped the said jeep, V
and forcibly took away ie; the panch
witness to the seizure i:1ah¥azar.t’Ex_;P;6¢_
‘.:’.:3ub’-‘Ir;speeV§to’r of Police who
registered’ -the petitioners-accused
snrmnaiaht He:-rd.f$onstable and P.W.1O Venkata
Reedy isthanother eenetable who speak about the recovery
V’ _ ‘L.Ieep.H “”” ” A’
~ ix~;r..,r-s-..==r
Vfpetitionersiaccused ‘nereifl Who Elffi rivai arr’ ‘-1: ti
‘ counsel for the petitioner submitted
P.W.5 and P.W.6 are all interested Witnesses,
in se.,.u..r-.g the eonvi ti. 1′: of the
mania’; u–v 4. – ..w wr –
Though P.W.5 in his evidence has etated that he knew all
FALQLL/u2LL’r I/L.__.
the three petitioners prior to thedate of co1111I1issioI1.pof the
offence, there is no mention of the names: foi”__”__ai3′,”the
cti all 1, it
names of petitioners ‘2 and are jj.n.;t’:’.f ‘ 1:; i__t’he*..
complaint as well as in the i’Snhseq11ei’-fig
of furtherestaternent of 3 are
implicated as aceusedinereonei euhmitted that
though we A-in A 2 V V
stolen _po1i§;epp_ Station, a
of witnefie P.W.7, but
the petitioner was not arrested ‘at
all and V;-ninite a. he tinie the mahazar was
djsawn” in the “po1i_ee,stai;iofl, pe’–‘_”on”r was “i_(‘:t preeer at
‘ Lothep drawing up of mahazar and that A-1
. Venirendered before the Court and had obtained
bai1,. ‘Seizure of Jeep on the basis of the voluntary
,1 1.: an 9 nnnimd nn gnw. Hg
5-, CHI-I-I lat \d\I\lnn\JI-an» I-«arr u
‘ no mention about the arrest of the petitioner No.1/A-1
i ?Lé.mu.cL’wL.
and nothing is stated to have been recovered gffom his
possession and at his instance, Thoughicit
the dealers, they in fact didnot licenee_:fe_
arrack in the area where ejlegeti had taken
place. He also submiftediiidependent witnesses
‘W’-” hwn exee11ned»b:,r.’she-1g=:oeee1=1iez1 t.
guilt of the « _ Z:
,.'<:.~,.= .'"–,.;;g.. =,." 1- +
; '._"'c§;' "11 11 '3 Jae material en re-we rd, I
find line agent has deposed in
his. evidenee_:Vt11a¥: he was coming in the Jeep KA 40
V. – aiter arrack packets in Maraganakunte
came in _8.110fl1CI' Jeep
E
D
C:
e
.1
.c jeepufrom proceeding further. He has further -deposed that
ii inmates of the jeep in which he was travelling were
Vipulled down and forcibly the jeep WaS_t&|1£§l’_1 beatixlg
/Q.:@–Q–LJLQ,J..$c’-»I_,
P,W,5 .
P.W.2, P.W.5 and PW. 6. In the evidence it is brought on
record that the driver of the Jeep as well V.
persons ‘..e.e c.21.rr_\,Ii__g cash which they had ‘
selling the arrtcx p”ci{“ts t.m'” t.’1e1;tin1.e’t:ie”j-e}:–
by the accused persons, noiiesof the’*accus¢Ci;9;ti€fiI:ifa’v.o
steal, rob and snatch the cashivieziiotiht their
possession. P.W.2 haestated that
the driver jeep P.W.-.’i r, said persons,
P.W.5 being__tiie” has stated none
assau1ted__him,:::’ * only identified IVLO. 1
jeep bealirig ‘N__o.O5 M/6264. The said jeep
an’ythii1g*iI1« evidence and he does not kT1_’w mjrtliing
mint has deposed that he knew A-1 and
the doesihotiilaiow A-2 and A-3. He has further stated that
i
jfhe; does no. . .-w anythin about the case. Both the
–_’I’-I
‘ Witnesses have been tr”-*t”d “S hostile ..y the p:os…c1_1Li_h,
It is on the basis of the evidence 0″ F’.W”.5 and I-“.W.8, ‘Le
Courts below have held that incident in qaesticn has
occurred in Maraganakunte: – village.’ -‘ {two
nrifnncuans gnu 1n1rne”r!a fig “(L nun
by the investigating. officer T’
independent witness. P.W,»4
scene of occurrence the case
of the prosecution. dated 29-6-1999
drawn for the -s”-‘iez’ _ ‘ T 1%.’o.m.
6264 in by the HC and
13.0 of * has also not been
estahiiishedV.VVsinjeep” witnesses have clearly
Q
‘ .theVjeep. :i.ie;, ___P.W.7 also admits_- that none of the accused
‘fi1*sons'{iz’erevp1*esent at the time; of the S§iZ11_1.’-jQ_:Of the jeep.
In amen it is found that petitioner No. had__vo1unwrfly
sV1″I”‘Is’-‘!’t’£II’|l’1.fl!’Vea anti Ohfnifinfl HQ b1’!
‘ V I..l.I-‘;Z’.\.tl.I.\..I.\Jl
.._.ed. to he made
it is
C-IA M LI KJCLI-I ‘W M Lila
‘out that he was apprehended when he- W_as:_fl the
‘ stolen jeep which was taken to the Police Station in the
10
presence of the accused persons and the same was”–seized
by the investigating officer. It is only ._of
‘P.’t’I!_2′ Pjxr I’: and 13111.5 \_x_jr ‘
VV If-LI ¢’4I.l.l.\.aI. -It
..ic–
.;;4. 1
_’__ -“-1
.es a a111_ of
manner in which the incident ihad…ta;E<ei1 " we 4
reading of the complaint .:~eqea1s"' that aeeusied,
known to the comp1a1'nanHt'V«are not in the
complaint. No attempfiisgrnade.i'.b;:_'thet accusedpersons to
witnesses,' in has also admitted that there
was no._.assaiut.:;py the accused. The record
reveais that "business rivalry between the first
peti..cner.._4 .;*….¢'»e.., iiandfiene By_a__reddy to whom the – jeep
mug No.
' apjmars the quarrel erupted on the date of' the
"incident.V–het.ween the two groups and as such a case came
to iiheviiifiled against the petitioners accused herein. In the
" _instent e"se, the recovery of ii:-L49! jeep -.o-.,- the Qossession
by the prosecution that the jeep belonging to Byrareddy
11
was forcibly took by these petitioners. N9_it_1dependent
witnesses have supported the case of ..to
‘VII f’\ ‘I’\ 1751
the jeep after beating P.w.z, r_.vg:.5 : yd’ _ ‘,
the said witnesses have a1s’o.__1_1oI;
show that they were packets for
distribution in the :’tt1e:’inoiderit “occurred on
th” date of ‘tifie ‘”””*”*-*'”*.f- VA”1°””.’.’V
‘5
t:
In-
‘. is
i
E
2
.2
failed to -tihei it accu$.?§l’.. beyond
reasonabie’~VdoIii1t.VV_i appears to be out come
of busitiess-..v~*–betWeen the first _ petitioner and
Bv s1″e-:,1P.ey t_.e_riv-fl:°’_die11’ibutors of arrack. As the
“.1.-.1}.-.1-. ‘I-us;
‘ 1 to _’g*uu_-“‘t of mesa
prdsecutiofl iiiséfi. iaii
‘ Lpmcusedifieyond all reasonable doubt, they are entitled for
H the revision petition requires to be allowed.
‘ V following:
{TDTTFi’_
\…r£\_:_g*._g4\
The revision petition is aiiovved and the o -u r o
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as
12
affirmed by the first ap.pe1late Court is set asid’e«.bT The
accused are acquitted of the _c_ha1’gcs _.
t….,_—. .11: 1331. bends furnished by the
l
H:
1
n
I
3:
1
5
-lid ”v *;..e 2