- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SYED TABREZ @ TABREZ S/O SYED FAIROZ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BUDRUNNISA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVERNEMT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.44056/2010 DATED 08.01.2014 AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS COURT IN CRL.A.NO.42/2014 ON THE FILE OF LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,(CCH-65), BANGALORE DATED 07.09.2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner –accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 07.09.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.42/2014 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-65), Bengaluru wherein the judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2014 in C.C.No.44056/2010 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru convicting this petitioner –accused No.1 and two others for offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. when P.W.2 –minor daughter of P.W.1 was alone in the house, the petitioner – - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 accused No.1 and two other persons i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 with common intention came to the house of P.W.1 and one of accused entered into house of P.W.1 by giving false information and committed theft of 45 grams gold ornaments total worth of Rs.30,000/-. Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. The trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and appreciating evidence on record has convicted the petitioner and other accused persons for offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The petitioner –accused No.1 has challenged the said judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.42/2014 and same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 07.09.2015. Challenging the said judgment dated 07.09.2015 the petitioner –accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner –accused No.1 would contend that the incident has taken place on 25.05.2010 and complaint has been filed on 05.06.2010 and there is delay in filing the complaint. The said delay has not taken into consideration by the trial Court and Appellate Court. The daughter of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 has identified accused No.3 as person who entered into house and taken golden ornaments that itself indicate that this petitioner –accused No.1 has not entered into house for committing the theft. In order to establish seizer of golden ornaments, panchas to Ex.P8 –mahazar are not examined. She further contended that test identification parade has not been conducted. On these grounds she prayed to allow this Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner –accused No.1. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that theft articles/ornaments are seized from possession of petitioner –accused No.1 and other two accused from the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 shop of P.W.5 under mahazar –Ex.P8 and those articles/ornaments have been identified by P.W.1. P.W.2 is eye witness to the incident and she has identified this petitioner as one among the person who came to her house and out of them, accused No.3 entered into house and committed theft of golden articles/ornaments. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused No.1 and two others for offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. The Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the appeal filed this petitioner –accused No.1. With these, she prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Revision Petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. 7. The theft in the house of P.W.1 had taken place on 25.05.2010. P.W.1 was not in the house at the time of theft and he filed complaint on 05.06.2010. P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that under work pressure he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 could not lodge the police complaint immediately i.e., on the date of incident. There are no allegations of false implication of the petitioner and other accused due to lapse of time in between date of incident and filing of the complaint. Therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint becomes immaterial. 8. P.W.2 is eye witness to the incident and she has narrated about the incident and identified accused No.3 as person who entered the house and committed theft of golden articles/ornaments and she has identified this petitioner –accused No.1 and other accused as person who are standing outside her house. Noting material has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 to disbelieve her testimony. Articles/ornaments of theft are seized from the shop P.W.5 at the instance of accused persons. Voluntary statements of petitioner –accused No.1 and other accused are at Ex.P5 to 7. Based on the information given in their statements, the police took them to the shop of P.W.5 and recovered golden ornaments given by them to P.W.5 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 under mahazar –Ex.P8. P.W.5 is also one of pancha to the said mahazar. One of pancha to Ex.P8 -mahazar has been examined. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that panchas to Ex.P8 are not examined has no basis. P.W.2 who is eye witness to the incident has specifically identified this petitioner –accused No.1 and other accused and therefore, there is no question of conducting test identification parade as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted this petitioner –accused No.2 and two others for offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. The Appellate Court re-appreciating evidence on record has dismissed the appeal filed by this petitioner –accused No.1 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the sentence of imprisonment for a period of four years is on higher side. The offence for which the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20910 CRL.RP No. 1487 of 2016 petitioner –accused No.1 has been convicted is punishable under Section 380 of IPC. The maximum sentence for the said offence is imprisonment for a period of seven years. The trial Court has awarded sentence of imprisonment for a period four years considering facts and circumstance of the case. Therefore, sentence imposed on the petitioner – accused No.1 cannot be said to be on higher side. The petitioner is not only involved in theft of golden ornaments in this case but also in other cases. Considering the said aspect, sentence imposed on the petitioner is proper and correct. 10. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds made out for setting aside impugned judgments and acquittal of the petitioner –accused No.1. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50