Zabulla @ Munna vs State of Jayanagar Police

K.N. Keshava Narayana, J.—In this revision petition filed u/s 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner, who was accused in C.C. No. 219/95 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Shimoga, has questioned the legality and correctness of the concurrent judgment of the Courts below convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 392 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment as also to pay fine.

The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 1.3.1999 at about 8.00 p.m. when P.Ws. 1 to 3 were returning from Ganapathi temple at Ravindra Nagar, Shimoga, the Petitioner herein along with another person came from behind on a bicycle, snatched the gold chain of P.W. 1 and went away from the place; on hearing the cries of P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.Ws. 4 and 9 chased the culprits on a motorcycle, caught hold of the Petitioner herein near Chennappa Lay Out; at that place P.Ws. 1 to 3 identified the Petitioner as the person who snatched the chain; on search of the person of the Petitioner, a gold chain was found in the pant pocket; from there, the Petitioner was brought to the Police Station and was produced before the SHO. In the Police Station, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint based on which case was registered. Gold chain was seized from the possession of the Petitioner and the same was identified by P.Ws. 1 to 3. After completing investigation, the charge sheet came to be laid.

The Petitioner - accused pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. After the prosecution led evidence, during his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner-accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses. However, the Petitioner - accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

After hearing both sides and on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate held the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and convicted him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said offence. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be affirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 59/2001. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the Petitioner has presented this petition.

I have heard Smt. Badrunnisa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri. P. Karunakar, High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records secured from the Courts below.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the evidence placed by the prosecution does not satisfactorily establish the complicity of the Petitioner in the alleged incident, therefore the judgment of the Courts below convicting the Petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC is perverse and illegal as such it is liable to be set aside, and the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. It is also her submission that pursuant to the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner has already served out substantial term of the imprisonment order, therefore, the sentence ordered by the Court below be reduced to the period already served out by the Petitioner and he be ordered to be released forthwith.

Learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the judgment of the Courts below and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent judgment of the Courts below as such he sought for dismissal of the petition.

I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the records secured from the Courts below, closely scrutinized the evidence on record and carefully read the judgments under revision.

The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 relied upon by the Courts below establishes that on 1.3.1995 at about 7.45 p.m. while they were returning to their residence from Ganapathi Temple at Ravindra Nagar, Shimoga, the Petitioner herein came from behind on the bicycle and snatched gold chain from the person of P.W. 1 and on hearing their cries, P.Ws. 4 and 9 chased the culprit on a motor cycle and caught hold of culprit in Chennappa Lay Out, thereafter, P.W. 1 lodged the complaint with the police and identified gold chain which was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 9 would corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 9, on hearing the cries of P.Ws. 1 to 3 they chased the culprit on the motor cycle and near Chennappa Layout they caught hold of the Petitioner and there he was identified by P.W. 1 as the person who snatched her gold chain and on search made on the person of the Petitioner, gold chain was found in his pant pocket. On identification of the said gold chain by P.Ws. 1 to 3, the Policed seized the same under a mahazar. It is also their say that they brought the Petitioner to the Police Station where P.W. 1 lodged a complaint and thereafter the said gold chain was seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of punches in the Police Station. Though these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence of these witnesses and have found that there is nothing to discredit their testimony. Identity of the Petitioner - accused as the person who snatched the gold chain has been clearly established. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of the evidence has found the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence on record has found nothing wrong in the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate and has held that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge levelled against the accused. This Court sitting in revision u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot reappreciate the evidence and form a different opinion. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the evidence of the witnesses. I find no error of law or jurisdiction having been committed by the Courts below in convicting the Petitioner - accused for the charge levelled against him. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgment of the Courts below.

The trial Court, as noticed supra, sentenced the Petitioner to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The records of the trial Court indicates that the Petitioner - accused appeared before learned Magistrate after the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court on 10.7.2007 and he was committed to prison on that day. It appears since then he has been in prison and served the sentence. Having regard to the nature of the offence for which the Petitioner has been found guilty, the quantum of sentence ordered by the trial Court cannot be termed as excessive or as irrational. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the order of sentence passed by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. If the Petitioner has already served the entire period of sentence as ordered by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, he shall be released.