Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 634 (KAR)

Ravindra Reddy S/O Byrappa v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-30

M.G.UMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : M G UMA, J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1634 of 2018 being accused No.3 in SC No.168 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2018, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 395 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 395 of IPC, with default sentences. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2020 being accused No.2 in SC No.61 of 2019 before the Trial Court, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2020, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 395 and 397 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 395 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, with default sentences. 3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 30.05.2011, accused Nos.1 to 11 have conspired together to commit dacoity. In furtherance of the same, accused Nos.1 to 7 made preparations, armed with deadly weapons had trespassed into the house of PWs.1 to 3 and committed dacoity of gold ornaments, silver articles, cash of Rs.54,000/- and samsung mobile phone, and gave life threat to them. 4. It is stated that accused No.3 alongwith accused No.1 sold the gold ingots to CW27 and got melted it to prepare the gold bangles, thereby caused disappearance of evidence. Accused No.2 sold the 6 gold ingots to accused No.10, which he looted along with the co-accused and sold remaining ingots to CW34 and received Rs.6,60,000/-, out of which, accused No.2 retained Rs.6,00,000/- and gave Rs.60,000/- to accused No.10. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 395, 397 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. 5. In SC No.168 of 2011, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 395, 397 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. 5. In SC No.168 of 2011, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 got marked Exs.P1 to P82 and identified MOs.1 to 73 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1634 of 2018. During the pendency of appeal, appellant- accused No.1 died and the case against him stood abated vide order dated 04.04.2025. 6. During the pendency of SC No.168 of 2011, accused No.2 remained absconding and the therefore, split up charge sheet came to be filed. Hence, accused No.2 was tried by the Trial Court in SC No.61 of 2019. Accused No.2 was summoned before the Trial Court. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 got marked Exs.P1 to P81 and identified MOs.1 to 73 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2020. 7. Heard Sri N R Krishnappa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2020. 7. Heard Sri N R Krishnappa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellants in both the appeals have made out any grounds to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?" My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following: REASONS 9. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 who are appellants herein being the members of unlawful assembly have conspired with accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 to commit dacoity and in furtherance of the same, they went to the house of PWs.1 to 3, armed with deadly weapons, gave life threat to them, committed dacoity as they looted the cash, gold and silver ornaments. In order to cause disappearance of evidence, they have distributed cash among themselves, by selling gold and silver articles to different persons and some were converted into gold ingots or gold jewellery. On the basis of same, first information was filed by PW1-the eye witness and FIR came to be registered. Investigation was undertaken. 10. During investigation, these appellants were apprehended alongwith co-accused and incriminating materials were seized at their instance. It is stated that MOs.24 to 26 and 29 were recovered under Exs.P48 and 49 at the instance of accused No.3. PW8 has spoken about 6 mahazars and accused No.3 leading the Investigating Officer to recover the gold from the gold shop. PW13 is the other material witness who speak about selling of MOs.31 to 36 which were recovered at their instance under Ex.P46. PW14 identified accused Nos.1 and 3 who spoke about recovery of MOs.39 and 40 under Ex.P58. The Investigating Officer who is examined as PW19 speaks about spot mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar Ex.P33 and speaks about accused No.3 leading to recovery of the incriminating materials. PW21-the Tahsildar who conducted test identification parade where PWs.1 to 3 being the eye witnesses have identified accused No.2. The Investigating Officer who is examined as PW19 speaks about spot mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar Ex.P33 and speaks about accused No.3 leading to recovery of the incriminating materials. PW21-the Tahsildar who conducted test identification parade where PWs.1 to 3 being the eye witnesses have identified accused No.2. PW3 is the Investigating Officer who conducted and completed investigation and filed the charge sheet speaks about voluminous statement given by accused No.1 which led to the recovery of MOs.39 and 40. 11. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.3 that it was accused No.1 who entered the house of PWs.1 to 3, accused No.3 has not entered the house and PWs.1 to 3 have never identified him or that the only incriminating materials against accused No.3 is recovery of MOs.39 and 40 under Ex.P58 or that involvement of accused No.3 in commission of offences is not proved cannot be accepted. There are sufficient materials to connect accused No.3 to the offences in question and there are voluminous materials that are placed before the Court by the prosecution. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences as stated above. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the materials on record to convict accused No.3 for the aforesaid offences. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant -accused No.3 contended that the Trial Court has imposed maximum imprisonment while sentencing him. Therefore, prays for leniency in sentencing him. He further submits that accused No.3 is in custody since more than 6 years and therefore, set off may be given to him by imposing minimum sentence. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.2 submitted that even though PWs.1 and 2 have identified the appellant as accused No.2, cash of Rs.20,000/- was seized from the person of accused No.2 and motor cycle - MO65 was recovered under Ex.P44 and its only the incriminating material available against accused No.2. 14. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 3 being eye witnesses to the incident have identified accused No.2 during test identification parade. PW6 speaks about accused No.2 leading to the recovery of incriminating materials and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P44. 14. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 3 being eye witnesses to the incident have identified accused No.2 during test identification parade. PW6 speaks about accused No.2 leading to the recovery of incriminating materials and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P44. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.2 that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused cannot be accepted. There are sufficient materials to connect the accused to the offences in question. 15. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3, it is seen that the Trial Court has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC; and 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. Accused No.2 is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, with fine of default sentences. I do not find any reason to impose the maximum sentence, since admittedly, accused No.2 and 3 have not caused any injuries to the inmates of the house, while committing dacoity. Hence, I am of the opinion that leniency could be shown while sentencing accused No.2 and 3. 16. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. However, for the reasons stated above, order of sentence passed by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2018 passed in SC No.168 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF), for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 395 of IPC, against appellant- accused No.3 is hereby confirmed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2018 passed in SC No.168 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF), for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 395 of IPC, against appellant- accused No.3 is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under: (a) The appellant - accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 years for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. (b) The fine amount imposed by the Trial Court remains intact with 1/4 th of default sentence. (iv) The judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2020 passed in SC No.61 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF), for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 395 and 397 of IPC, against appellant - accused No.2 is hereby confirmed. (v) However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under: (a) The appellant - accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC; to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 years for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. (b) The fine amount imposed by the Trial Court remains intact with 1/4 th of default sentence. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.