H.R. Chandra, Swamy alias Swamygowda, Subba alias Subbegowda and Sakegowda alias Saka vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—These two Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the conviction of the Petitioners herein along with two others for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the I.P.C. and the trial court''s judgment of conviction and sentence being confirmed by the lower appellate court by dismissing the appeals preferred by the Petitioners herein.

Criminal Revision Petition No. 532/2005 is by A-3 and A-5 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 533/2005 is by A-1 and A-4. The other two accused, who are also convicted and sentenced, have not preferred any appeal or any revision before this Court.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, complainant Laxmana Rao Cog was running a cloth shop at Hallimysore and on 23.3.1988 he left, for Bangalore in the night after locking the shop and on the following day at 8.30 a.m., when he went and opened the shop, to his surprise, he found that the lock was broken and the cloths were lying scattered inside. He lodged complaint with the police as per Ex.P-1.

P.W. 15 A.K. Suresh took up investigation of the case from the Sub-Inspector and the investigation led to the cloths being seized from the accused persons under various panchanamas. The complainant identified the cloths as belonging to his shop. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

At the trial, following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and got marked 30 documents, which also included several panchanamas and M.Os. 1 to 11 were also produced. The accused statement was recorded and the accused denied the prosecution case and they did not lead any defence evidence, except marking some portions in the evidence of P.W.4 as Exs.D-J to D-3.

The learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, was convinced by the prosecution evidence being proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly all the six accused were convicted and sentenced. Each of the accused was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment in respect of each of the two offences under Sections 380 and 457 and they were also fined Rs. 2,000/- respectively for the two offences and default sentence of three months was also imposed. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial court''s judgment in the appeals preferred by the Petitioners before this Court. Only four accused had preferred the appeals.

I have heard learned Counsel Shri R.D. Renukaradhya for the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader Shri Satish R. Girji for the State and perused the records of this case

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, though the prosecution had produced various seizure panchanamas, the Petitioners could not have been convicted en the basis of the seizure panchanamas only. He also submitted that the Petitioners are innocent villagers and they are involved in these offences for the first time and, therefore, the Petitioners be released under the Probation of Offenders Act.

On the other hand, the submission of the learned Government Pleader for the State is that, the lower appellate court has rejected the prayer for release on probation taking note of the serious nature of the offences proved against the Petitioners-accused and moreover, the cloths were all seized from the houses of the accused persons under various panchanamas and the accused also did not come up with any explanation and, as such, the conviction and sentence does not call for any interference. If however, the court is inclined to accept the submission of the Petitioners'' counsel with regard to the modification of sentence, fine amount may be increased.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the judgments of the courts below, I find that the prosecution has established the case against the Petitioners beyond ail reasonable doubt. The recovery panchanamas Exs.P-4, P-5, P-6, P-9, P-10 and P-11 are all proved before the trial court through the respective panchas. Cloths were seized from the houses of the accused persons and the accused had no explanation as to how they came in possession of the said cloths. Under these circumstances, the courts below had no reason to doubt the prosecution case. I. therefore, hold that the conviction of the Petitioners by the courts below does not call for any interference.

As far as the sentence is concerned, having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are villagers and for the first time they are involved in the aforesaid offences, taking note of the above factors and also the fact of the Petitioners being on bail throughout and having been in custody for 15 days during the trial period and also taking note of the fact that the incident is said to have occurred in the year 1998 and more than 11 years have elapsed, all these factors incline me to modify the sentence by reducing die imprisonment period and enhancing the fine amount.

In the result, the following order is passed:

The conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 360 and 457 of the I.P.C. by the courts below stand confirmed and to this extent, the petitions stand dismissed.

However, as far as the sentence is concerned, instead of one year imprisonment imposed by the trial court in respect of each of the two offences, six months imprisonment is imposed and at the same time, fine amount is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of conviction u/s 380 of the I.P.C. and to Rs. 10,000/- in respect of conviction u/s 457 of the I.P.C. Default sentence for non-payment of the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- will be a further period of three months and default sentence for the offence u/s 457 will be two months.

The petitions, therefore, stand allowed in part to the extent of the sentences being modified as aforesaid.

The trial court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of the Petitioners to undergo the sentences imposed upon them.