- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200068 OF 2020 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKHAR @ SHEKHAR S/O HANUMANTH, AGE:30 YEARS OCC: CAR DRIVER, R/O. MAHABOOB COLONY, SUTTA AREA, SINDHANUR, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107, THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN P.S., DIST. RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ADMIT THIS APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24.06.2020 AND 25.06.2020 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR DISTRICT RAICHUR IN S.C.No.70/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.397 AND 307 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2020 and order on sentence dated 25.06.2020 in S.C. No.70/2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, wherein the accused has been convicted for the offences under Sections 397 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Factual matrix of the case are as under: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, P.W.3 – Shankar Shetty, who is running Nandini hotel in front of the bus stand at Sindhanur, was staying along with his wife P.W.1 – Vanitha Shetty and his son P.W.14 – Kshitija Shetty. They were residing as tenants in the house of P.W.21 – Shailaja – wife of Dr. Prabhakar. P.W.1 lodges a complaint stating that, on 07.04.2015 around 09.30 p.m., P.Ws.1, 3 and 14 had dinner in their house. P.W.1 was watching TV and P.W.14 was sitting on sofaset in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 house. At about 10.15 p.m., an unknown person, who was aged about 20 to 25 years, trespassed into the house and stood behind P.W.1 and closed the mouth of P.W.1 by showing the knife towards her and asked her to handover the gold mangalya chain. However, P.W.1 protested and pushed him. In the said scuffle, P.W.1 and the thief fell down on the ground. P.W.1 immediately screamed for help as “thief, thief” and in the said scuffle, she had sustained injury on her forehead. 3. It is further stated that, the mangalya chain of P.W.1 was stolen in the said incident. P.W.2 along with others rushed to the spot and obtained the description of the person who committed the robbery. P.W.2 took the motorcycle of the bank official in order to search the person. He is stated to have searched the said person and instructed the accused to sit on his motorcycle to proceed to the place where he had committed theft. However, he got injured in the journey to his neck with a blade by the accused. 4. P.W.2 was shifted to the hospital for treatment. In the meantime, P.W.1 lodges a complaint against the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 unknown person by giving his description. The respondent – Police after registering the case, conducted the investigation, and submitted the charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution, in all, examined 21 witnesses as PWs.1 to 21 and got marked 23 documents as per Exs.P1 to P23 and also identified 4 material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, recorded the conviction for the above mentioned offences. 6. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction are contrary to the evidence on record and not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. It is further submitted that the accused is a stranger to P.W.1. He is stated to have snatched gold chain from her neck. However, the said gold chain has not been recovered and marked. No identification parade has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 taken place to identify that the accused had assaulted and snatched her gold chain. Though P.W.2 stated to have sustained bleeding injury at the instance of the accused, the blood-stained clothes of P.W.2 were not recovered nor seized from him. 9. It is further submitted that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2 and in his statement before the Police, he stated that the accused had cut his neck by using the blade. However, in the evidence, PW.7 has stated that the accused had used a knife to cut the neck of PW.2. Further, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused was being taken by him in the incident that had taken place, on the contrary, in the FIR it is mentioned that there was one more person who was sitting behind the accused. In other words, it was triple- riding. Such being the fact, the person who was sitting behind the accused has not been examined nor cited as a witness, which creates a doubt about the incident. Therefore, the said benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused in the form of benefit of doubt. Not extending the said benefit would be an abuse of process - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 of law, hence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent vehemently justified the judgment of conviction and he further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 14 would indicate that the accused had committed theft by trespassing into the dwelling house and thereafter, when he was being taken to the police station, he caused injury to P.W.2. 11. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 would indicate that P.W.2 knew the accused prior to the incident as both were working as drivers and also both were the members of Drivers Union. When P.W.2 identified the accused soon after the incident, conducting the identification parade may not be necessary. 12. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 and the Doctor who examined the injured are relevant for the purpose of considering that the accused had committed an offence which is punishable under Section 307 of IPC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 13. It is further submitted that there are some discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 in respect of the identity of the knife and also the manner in which the accused was taken to the police station. However, the said discrepancies and contradictions are held to be minor and it would not affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution. In fact, the material witnesses have been cross-examined, however, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. Such being the fact, the Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly recorded the conviction which is proper and appropriate. Hence, interference may not be required with the said findings. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Court below in recording the conviction, it is relevant to have a cursory look upon the evidence of the witnesses. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 15. P.W.1 is the complainant and she has stated in her complaint that, when she was watching TV after having dinner along with her son, the accused entered the house and threatened her by showing the knife in order to commit robbery of her mangalya chain. However, the said chain was not taken by the accused. 16. P.W.14 who is the son of P.W.1 stated in his evidence has stated that the accused had been to his house and he was threatening himself and P.W.1 to give mangalya chain. However, it was not taken by the accused. He identified the accused in the police station after the incident. 17. Though both of these witnesses have stated about the incident and also injury sustained to P.W.1, the fact remains that, both these witnesses did not identify the accused as per law. In fact, the Investigation Officer ought to have conducted an identification parade to identify the said accused as he was a stranger to the witnesses. Not conducting the said identification parade is fatal to the case of the prosecution in respect of the identity of the accused. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 18. As regards the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 is concerned, P.W.2 stated to have gone for searching the accused by taking the motorcycle of the bank official and he said to have recognized and identified the accused who was standing near the land. He further stated that, he was attacked by the accused while he was bringing him back on his motorcycle to the place of incident. According to him, he was assaulted with a shaving blade. However, the prosecution has produced the knife and identified the said knife as M.0.1. Suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination regarding enmity between himself and the accused, it was denied. However, it is an admitted fact that, both accused and P.W.2 were the members of the same Drivers Association, as such, he stated to have identified the accused. He further stated that, both himself and accused were working as drivers attached to one MLA. 19. Having considered the inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and also the flaws in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency, I am of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1880 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2020 considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2020 and order on sentence dated 25.06.2020 passed in S.C.No.70 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, is set aside. (iii) The appellant / accused is acquitted for the offence under Sections 397 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT:PK