Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26285 (KAR)

REVANASIDDAPPA @ RENUKAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.A/855/2013 · 2025-04-28

H P Sandesh

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. REVANASIDDAPPA @ RENUKAPPA, S/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O "DASHARATI NILAYA", 5TH ‘C’ CROSS, VAALMIKI NAGARA, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572103 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TUMKUR RURAL POLICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.07.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.35/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State. 2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that one S.C.Nagarajaiah filed a complaint on 25.10.2009 at about 11:30 a.m. alleging that a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-02-ED-1320, which was parked at Sridevi Institute of Technology by his son Kiran on 22.10.2009 was missing from that parked place and after thorough search, he did not find the motorcycle. Hence, filed a complaint and the police have registered the case in Cr.No.340/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and took up the investigation and visited the spot and prepared the mahazar. That on 22.10.2009, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station received credible information and he was on patrolling duty at Ring Road near Alankar Daba. At that time, the accused came on a Hero Honda motorcycle from Batawadi side and the said motorcycle had no registration number. Therefore, they stopped him and enquired. During enquiry, the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to the motorcycle and they came to know that it is a theft - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 article. Hence, they secured the panchas and prepared the mahazar and seized the motorcycle. During further investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Tumkur Rural Police Station seized 13 motorcycles from the house of the accused and he also recovered 30 motorcycles sold by the accused. As the complainant identified the motorbike seized on 22.10.2009 as his motorcycle, the statement of witnesses were recorded and after the completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 413 of IPC. 3. The Trial Judge secured the presence of the accused and the learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11 and material object M.O.1 was marked. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, recorded the 313 statement of the accused and the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case that the vehicle was seized at the instance of the accused and negatived the point for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 consideration No.2 and convicted the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel contend that P.W.1 is the son of the complainant and the original complainant died during the trial. Though the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, they have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution and hence the very theory of seizure of the motorcycle is not proved. The learned counsel contend that the very evidence is not clinching against the accused. P.W.6 participated in the investigation along with P.W.7. The learned counsel contend that the recovery is not proved since P.W.2 and P.W.3 have turned hostile. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are official witnesses and their evidence is not credible and hence it requires interference of this Court and set aside the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 conviction for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State would contend that the Trial Court in detail discussed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. P.W.5 is the attestor to the spot mahazar and P.W.6 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who assisted the Investigating Officer while seizing the vehicle from the custody of the accused. The learned counsel contend that P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer. The accused was apprehended along with the vehicle and also seized 13 motorcycles and in total 30 motorcycles were recovered as the same were disposed of. The learned counsel contend that though P.W.2 has turned hostile, the evidence of other witnesses is very clear that the vehicles were seized at the instance of the accused and he is a habitual offender and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court and hence imposed rigorous imprisonment. The evidence of P.W.7 is clear with regard to seizure of 13 vehicles and recovery of 30 motorcycles, which were sold by the accused himself. Hence, there are sufficient material against the accused and hence it does not require interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State and also considering the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court to exercise the appellate jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1, who is the complainant, in his evidence he says that the vehicle was in the name of his brother S.N.Nagabhushana, who is residing at Bengaluru and he was using the said motorcycle. He says that on the date of incident, he had parked the vehicle in the college premises and when he came back to the parking area, he found that the vehicle was missing and hence the complaint is given by his father after two days. He also identifies the complaint since the father of the complainant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 was no more and he also identified the spot mahazar Ex.P.2. It is also his evidence that he obtained the motorcycle through the Court and produced the same at the time of the evidence. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. 9. In the cross-examination, he admits that in the college premises the security used to subject for enquiry. He claims that the security was not there where he parked the vehicle. It is suggested that he has not taken the vehicle to the college on the date of incident and the same was denied. He categorically says that when he found the motorcycle was missing, the same was brought to the notice of the security, but not given any complaint. He says that he was not having any difficulty to lodge the complaint, but the complaint was given by his father. He admits that for the first time he had seen the accused and he has not given any statement before the police. 10. P.W.2 in his evidence states that he had signed the mahazar near the auto stand. Nothing is seized in his presence and he has turned hostile. In the cross- examination, the learned PP made the suggestion that when the instruction was given to the accused to stop the vehicle, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 he did not stop the vehicle and the motorcycle was chased and seized by drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.3 and the same was denied by P.W.2. 11. P.W.3 says that he cannot tell who was riding the motorcycle. However, he identified his signature on Ex.P.3. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that in his presence only Ex.P.3 was drawn and he denies the same, but he identifies his signature. 12. P.W.4 is the painting artist and he says that he was having acquaintance with the accused and he used to come and take the number plate and 7 to 8 number plates were taken by him. In the cross-examination, he admits that he has not taken any licence or certificate and also not given the same to the police. He says that he is running the shop in a rented premises and he has not given the rental agreement to the police. It is suggested that the accused never went to him and obtained any number plate and the same was denied. It is suggested that for the first time he is seeing the accused and the same was denied. 13. P.W.5 is the panch witness to Ex.P.2. In his cross-examination, he says that the police have not given any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 notice to him to come to the spot mahazar place. He says that there were around 50 persons and 2 to 3 police people at the spot. It is suggested that he never went to the spot and signed and the same was denied. 14. P.W.6 is the ASI and he says that he received the information that a vehicle is coming without number plate and they stopped the vehicle and the rider of the motorcycle was afraid on seeing them and the vehicle was Hero Honda Splendor Plus and no number plate was there. He says that he secured the panch witnesses and seized the vehicle. He says that the accused gave voluntary statement that 20 days back he committed the theft from Sridevi Engineering College and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.3. In the cross- examination, a suggestion was made that the accused did not bring any vehicle in the Ring Road and he is falsely deposing and the same was denied. He says that while signing the panchanama, it was around 7.30 to 8.00. 15. P.W.7 is the PSI and he identified his signature as Ex.P.1(b) and Ex.P.6 is the FIR. He says that he went to the spot and prepared the panchanama and he identified his signature as Ex.P.2(c). He says that the accused was coming - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 in the motorcycle without number plate from Batawadi side and they stopped him and when his name was enquired, he disclosed his name as Renukappa and once again Revanasiddappa and he came to know that the motorcycle was a theft motorcycle. He says that he had drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.3. It is also his evidence that from the house and garden land of the accused, 13 motorcycles were seized. In total 30 motorcycles were seized which were sold. He says that P.W.2 and P.W.3 gave the statement in terms of Exs.P.4 and 5 before him. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that in the FIR not stated anything regarding delay and he admits that the panch witnesses are not the valuers of the motorcycle. 16. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that when he had parked the vehicle near the college premises, the same was not found and hence his father had lodged the complaint. He admits that he was not having any difficulty to lodge the complaint and also admits in the cross- examination that for the first time he is witnessing the accused. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that he had received the information that a person is coming from Kyatsandra side in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 the motorcycle without number plate and within 15-20 minutes the vehicle came and they stopped the vehicle. On enquiry, the accused was afraid on witnessing the uniform and the motorcycle was Hero Honda Splendor Plus and there was no number plate. The accused gave voluntary statement that 20 days back, he committed the theft of motorcycle in Sridevi Engineering College and he is taking the motorcycle for sale. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, he says that on credible information he found the vehicle was moving without number plate. The evidence of P.W.4 is clear that he was having acquaintance with the accused person and the accused person earlier also approached him for getting the number plate. He also says that from 3 to 4 years, he has collected 7 to 8 number plates for Hero Honda, TVS and other vehicles. He admits that he is not having any license and also he has not given any rental agreement since he is running shop in the rented premises. A suggestion was made that the accused did not obtain any number plate from him and the said suggestion was denied. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was no any voluntary statement regarding recovery of motorcycle. But the fact is that the motorcycle - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 M.O.1 belongs to the complainant and the same was seized and the recovery is made at the instance of the accused. The evidence of P.W.6 is clear that when the accused was taking the vehicle for sale of the same, he was stopped and seized the same and drawn the mahazar. The photographs are also produced as Exs.P.7 to 10 about the seizure of the motorcycle. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 6 is coupled with the documentary evidence of the complaint Ex.P.1, seizure of motorcycle in terms of Ex.P.3 and also the evidence of Investigating Officer as well as complainant. There is no explanation with regard to the possession of M.O.1 with the accused in his 313 statement. Once the vehicle was recovered at the instance of the accused, the accused ought to have given the explanation with regard to incriminating evidence available on record and nothing was stated in his 313 statement. But the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and 7 is clear. P.W.7 categorically stated that 13 motorcycles were seized from the possession of the accused and 30 motorcycles have been recovered at the instance of the accused when the vehicles were sold. Having taken note of the evidence of these witnesses, the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 discussed - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 in detail and comes to the conclusion that the offence under Section 379 of IPC is proved. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Trial Court committed an error in imposing the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. It is important to note that 13 motorcycles were seized at the instance of the accused and particularly, this vehicle was also seized. No doubt, mahazar for having seized 13 motorcycles was not placed before the Court. However, taking note of the possession of the vehicle M.O.1 from the custody of the appellant, how he got the possession of the vehicle was not explained and now the learned counsel cannot contend that no recovery was made at the instance of this appellant. No doubt, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The fact is that the vehicle was seized and the evidence of P.W.2 is in respect of seizure of the motorcycle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 identified their signatures in Ex.P.3. Except denying the seizure of the vehicle, no explanation was given by P.W.2 and P.W.3 what made them to sign the document of Ex.P.3. Hence, the Trial Court discussed the same in paragraph No.18 that though P.W.7 has stated that 13 motorbikes were seized from the possession of the accused - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 and 30 motorbikes have been recovered at the instance of the accused, there is no tangible evidence in this regard. Though, the Trial Court comes to such a conclusion with regard to the seizure of the motorcycle M.O.1 is concerned, comes to the conclusion that vehicle was seized and also relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, who used to prepare the number plates for the accused and the accused also was identified by P.W.4 that P.W.4 was having acquaintance with this appellant. When such materials are available before the Court, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this accused was in custody for a period of three months two days from 23.11.2009 to 25.02.2010. Having taken note of the non-production of the document of seizure of 13 vehicles at the instance of the accused, though stated that he was a habitual offender, the prosecution failed to produce that seizure mahazar of 13 vehicles except relying upon the evidence of P.W.7 who is the PSI, Hebbur Police Station and hence this Court cannot come to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and punishment imposed is rigorous - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17614 CRL.A No. 855 of 2013 imprisonment for a period six months and in order to comes to the conclusion of rigorous imprisonment also except the seizure mahazar of Ex.P.3, nothing is placed on record about the seizure of other vehicles. When such being the case, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence from six months to three months. The appellant was in custody for a period of three months two days and set off is given and hence there is no need for the appellant to once again surrender before the Court to undergo any sentence and if the sentence of three months is not completed, the appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court. Point No.(ii) 20. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal appeal is allowed in part and sentence is reduced to three months. If the appellant has completed the sentence of three months, set off is given under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS/MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69