Kallesh vs State by Town Police

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—1. The Revision Petitioner is Accused No. 1 before the trial Court in CC No. 2132/2010 for the alleged offence u/s. 379 of IPC. He was tried along with A3. A2 being the juvenile offender, he was sent to Juvenile Justice Board. The accused has contested the case before the trial Court and after recording the evidence and also providing opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witnesses, the trial Court after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted A1 and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default imprisonment for a period of one month.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, both the accused preferred an appeal before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2013. The appellate court after re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the materials on record, allowed the appeal partly and acquitted A3 from the charges leveled against him. However, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against A-1. The Accused No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court is before this Court by way of Revision.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. SPP for the State. Also, I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and also the evidence recorded by the trial Court and also the materials available on record.

It is the case of the prosecution before the trial Court that PW-1 has lodged a complaint on 20.08.2010 as per Ex. P1 before the Town Police Station, Chitradurga stating that on the night of 19.8.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., near Basaveshwara Hospital Premises, the accused persons committed theft of a motor cycle bearing its Registration No. KA-16/K-7775 worth Rs. 25,000/-. He informed the beat police near the police station about the missing of his motorcycle. The police have registered a case and started investigation. The Investigating Officer PW-7 Shankaraiah has deployed his men for the purpose of searching culprits. As the accused persons were suspiciously wondering in the city, the police on suspicion arrested A1 to A3 and produced them before the Investigating Officer. It appears on interrogation, the accused No. 1 has given a voluntary statement and by virtue of the said voluntary statement, he has shown some motorcycles in connection with this case and thereafter, the police after examining the witnesses, laid the charge sheet against the accused.

The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents and the accused was also examined u/s. 313 of Cr.PC. As he did not choose to lead any defence evidence, the trial Court after hearing the arguments recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused accordingly as noted supra.

The Appellate court found that there is absolutely no recovery at the instance of A3 and the recovery has been proved to the satisfaction only against accused No. 1 and therefore it acquitted Accused No. 3 and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against Accused No. 1.

PW-1, the complainant has categorically stated about the loss of his motorcycle on 19.8.2010 and also he lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 and he identified the motorcycle and recovery of the same at the instance of accused No. 1. He has also taken the said motorcycle to his interim custody which is marked at MO1. Though he has stated in the further statement that he had been to the place where the motorcycle was seized at the instance of A1, but he has not stated the same before the court. That apart, PWs. 2 & 3 who are the panch witnesses to Ex. P3 have categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Both of them have consistently stated that A1 led the police and the witnesses to Samrin Auto Engineering Works which is also called as Dada Peer Garage. At about 4.15 p.m., on that day, the accused has shown 4 motorcycles near the said Dada Peer Garage. The Police have examined the Engine number, chassis number of the vehicles and drew up the mahazar as per Ex. P-3 and they have signed the said mahazar on the spot. They also identified the motorcycle of the complainant as KA-16/K-7775. Similar questions have been put to both the witnesses in the course of cross examination. It is elicited that there are so many residential houses near the said garage and they cannot say the distance between the garage and the parking of the motorcycles, which were in the open place near the said garage. It is also stated that police and the accused went ahead and they followed them and the witnesses stood near the police jeep and thereafter, they signed the mahazar. They denied the suggestion that the accused never took them to the said place and shown any motorcycle. Except formal suggestions, nothing has been elicited in the course of cross examination to come to a conclusion that these witnesses are regular stock witnesses to the police or they are interested witnesses to falsely implicate the accused to the crime.

The evidence of these two witnesses is fully supported by the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 who have apprehended the accused near Prasanna Talkies in Chitradurga at about 2.30 p.m., on 27.8.2010. The accused was produced before the court and custody was taken and the recoveries were made at the instance of accused No. 1. The Investigating Officer also categorically stated that he was not earlier seen the accused persons and after their production he interrogated them and recorded the voluntary statements. Then only he came to know about the theft of motorcycle by the accused and thereafter, he secured the presence of the panch witnesses. He proceeded to the place where the motorcycle was recovered at the instance of accused as per Ex. P-3. In the course of cross examination also nothing has been elicited as to why these Police Officers have to falsely implicate the accused. It is also there in the evidence that in some other cases about 26 motorcycles were recovered at the instance of accused No. 1.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, even on re-looking into the materials on record, nothing is forthcoming as to why PWs. 2 & 3 and the Investigating Officer has to be disbelieved.

The accused has also not explained in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC. about the possession of the motorcycle with him and how he came to the possession of the motorcycle belonging to the complainant. He never claimed the said motorcycle as his own and also he never objected for release of the interim custody of the motorcycle of the complainant before the court. He has also not stated as to why these witnesses have deposed against him. There is no ill-will or hatredness, between the accused and these witnesses and Investigating Officer, nothing is elicited in the course of cross examination or in the statement of the accused recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs. 3 & 5 and the Investigating Officer. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed for their consideration. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition fails.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition stands dismissed.