State of Karnataka vs Suri @ Suresh @ Sudheer and Shankarmurthy

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.2011 in C.C. No. 389/2010

passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur and confirmed by the judgment dated 11.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2011 passed

by the Sessions Judge at Chikamagalur. The petitioner-police filed the charge sheet against the respondents accused in C.C. No. 389/2010

alleging that accused committed the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC. After framing charges the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs-1 to

12 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and M.Os 1 to 17. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments framed the following point for its

consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 26- 02-2010 at 11.30 p.m. near Yallambalase village in

Yalagondanahalli gate, the accused persons waylaid the complainant while he was going in Kinetic Honda, then by threaten him with knife and

committed the Robbery of finger rings, mobile phones and watch worth of Rs. 33,000/- and cash of Rs. 800/- and thereby accused have

committed the offence punishable U/s. 392 of IPC?

On appreciation of the entire materials on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove and establish the charge levelled

against the respondents. Consequently, under the impugned judgment the Trial Court acquitted the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in Crl. A No. 67/2011 on the file of the Lower Appellate Court. On re-

appreciation of the entire material on record the Lower Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and confirmed the judgment of the Trial

Court. Hence this Revision Petition. Pw-1 is the eye-witness to the incident. Pw-1 in his evidence deposed that he is not acquainted with the

respondents-accused. The incident had taken place in the night and in the spot there was no light. Further it is stated that the respondents covered

their face with monkey cap. In these circumstances the prosecution ought to have conducted identification parade. But in the instant case no such

identification parade was conducted. This is one of the important aspect that both the Courts below had taken into consideration while appreciating

the evidence on record. PW-7 and PW-11 are the punch witnesses and in their evidence these two witnesses have not whispered anything about

the confessional statement made by the respondents-accused. But the prosecution relied on the confessional statements said to have been made in

front of PW-7 and PW-11. This is yet another circumstance both the Courts below had taken into consideration to disbelieve the version of the

prosecution. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below are supported by the evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere

with the same. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed without reference to the respondents.