Sidda @ Siddanayaka vs The State of Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This revision is by the accused-petitioner assailing the order passed by both the Courts below in convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and in default to pay the fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.

As per the prosecution case, on the intermittent night of 19/20.1.1993 the petitioner along with one more accused having gained entry into the Kannika Parameshwari temple by breaking open the lock, committed theft of gold and silver articles and also silver idol worth Rs. 30,000/-. Later during investigation, the accused were arrested and at their instance, police have recovered the golden ingots from the receiver of the stolen properly. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and one more accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

Earlier on the strength of the complaint filed by the temple authorities namely Kannika Parameshwari Temple, ''C'' report was filed on 24.1.95 which has been accepted by the Court. Subsequently, during July 1996 one Kitty was arrested and during interrogation he revealed the names of this accused and one more accused person and based on his voluntary statement, the case was reopened and thereafter, charge sheet was filed by taking the accused into custody during November 2001. Subsequently, he was released on bail.

During the pendency of the matter before the learned Magistrate, Arkalgud, since accused No. 2 died, the case against him stood abated and this petitioner was prosecuted and thereafter, having held him guilty of the offence, he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate. As against the said order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan, who in turn confirmed the order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Magistrate, by dismissing the appeal. As against the said orders, this revision is filed by the accused on various grounds.

Heard.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the alleged incident has taken place during January 1993, whereas, one accused Kitty was arrested in connection with some other case and alleging that he has disclosed the name of this petitioner and one more accused in the involvement of theft the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The investigation conducted is not fair, much less, the identification of the accused in the commission of the offence and also selling the golden and silver articles to P.W.10- Mohanlal is not proved, as he did not identify the petitioner. Only for statistical purposes, petitioner has been implicated in this case. According to the prosecution the golden ornaments and the silver idol which was reduced into ingots were recovered from the receiver of the stolen property at the instance of this petitioner. But, the question of retaining the ingots for three long years by the receiver of the stolen property appears to be unnatural. The recovery is not proved in the direct sense and also the involvement of the petitioner is also not proved and on erroneous presumption accused has been convicted and sentenced, which cannot be sustained. The order of the learned Magistrate, which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, is without application of mind and without the legal evidence on record. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in several cases. Accordingly, sought for acquittal of the petitioner.

Per-contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the punch witnesses have supported the recovery of the golden ingots and silver articles stolen of the temple and also the version of the prosecution. Even M.O.I the silver idol has also been identified by the temple authorities P.Ws. 1 to 5. The trial Court and the appellate Court have come to the just conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused in committing the theft of golden articles and silver idol and there is a cogent evidence of the independent witnesses for the recovery at the instance of this petitioner. As such, the involvement of the accused-petitioner cannot be doubted. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the revision stating that the order of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused and confirming the said order by the appellate Court cannot be found fault with.

In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that would arise for my consideration is:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of this accused in committing the theft of gold ornaments and silver idol from Kannika Parameshwari Temple at Konanur?

(ii) Whether both the Courts below have committed any irregularity in convicting and sentencing the accused?

As it transpires, on the strength of the complaint filed during 1993 the police have filed ''C'' report after investigation as the accused could not be traced. When in connection with some other case one Kitty was arrested, during interrogation he said to have revealed the involvement of this petitioner and one Mr. Rajanna, accused No. 2 who is no more. On the strength of the said statement, the case was reopened and the police have conducted further investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also recovery panchanama was conducted at the instance of this petitioner and some of the articles were seized, of which the complainant and some of the temple authorities have identified the silver idol and also the ingots as belonging to the temple. Even the I.O. has also spoken about the recovery. Although the receiver of the stolen property could not identify this petitioner as the accused who has sold the golden articles and the silver idol along with one more accused, rather the say of the receiver of the stolen property is that he has a poor memory regarding this petitioner accompanying one more accused in selling the property after committing theft.

The panchanama has been conducted at the instance of this petitioner and there is said to be recovery and the said recovery has been supported by the panchas. P.Ws. 10, 11 and 13 are said to be the receivers of the stolen property. Although P.W.10 has not identified the accused. P.W.11 and 13 have identified this accused as the person who sold the theft articles.

P.W.1 is the convener of the Kannika Parameshwari Temple. He has spoken about the theft that has taken place in the temple. As per his evidence he was summoned by the Arsikere police and shown articles at M.Os 1 to 4, the golden ingots and the silver idol, of which he has identified and according to him they belong to temple and were stolen.

Similarly P.W.2 is also the Gardener of the temple. P.W.3 Shamanna is the Priest of the temple and P.W.4 is also the person concerned with the temple. They have spoken similar to P.W.1 regarding the recovery of the golden ingots and silver idol at the instance of the petitioner.

The main grievance of the petitioner''s Counsel is that the alleged incident has taken place during January 1993 and if at all those golden articles were converted into ingots it is impossible to imagine that the same were kept for three long years for the purpose of identification. But nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of the recovery of golden articles and silver idol at the instance of this petitioner and the panchas have also supported the said version. When nobody is there to identify or to witness the incident of committing the theft then the probable version of the recovery at the instance of the petitioner has to be believed. Although one of the receiver has not supported the case, but the other two witnesses i.e., P.Ws.11 and 13 have supported the selling of theft articles by the petitioner and one more person. The recovery coupled with identification by the temple authorities that the articles belong to the temple is sufficient to establish the case against the accused and also when after the arrest of this petitioner certain of the incriminating articles were recovered at his instance. There is a cogent evidence on record to point out the guilt of the accused and no such error or illegality has been committed by the trial Court or by the appellate Court in convicting and sentencing the accused.

In the circumstances, while confirming the order passed by both the Courts below in directing the accused-petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also imprisonment for one month in default to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Petitioner was said to be in custody for 12 days. He shall serve the remaining part of his sentence.