- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 855 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI JAYANNA S/O HULIGEPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF KOTHTHURU VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK NOW RESIDING AT BANDIHATTI VILLAGE CHELLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHITRADURGA POLICE, REP. BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.71/2016 AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 15.09.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.1139/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 CAV ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15.09.2016 in C.C.No.1139/2013 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga and its confirmation judgment and order dated 10.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.71/2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Srinivas H filed a complaint on 19.09.2012 before the Chitradurga police station alleging that on 17.09.2012 at about 7.00 pm, he had parked his vehicle in front of his office. After having finished his work, he came near the parking place and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 noticed that his vehicle was not there. He started searching the vehicle in the nearby places. As he could not secure any information regarding his vehicle, he lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. Heard Sri. Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are erroneous in law and facts and also the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused being an aged person, he could not have committed theft of motor cycle. In fact, he was not aware about the driving of the vehicle. In spite of not collecting any driving license from the petitioner by the Investigation Officer, rendering the conviction against the accused stating that he had committed theft of the vehicle is erroneous and not proper. 8. It is further submitted that the bikes alleged to have stolen were recovered from P.W.12. In fact, P.W.12 had admitted that he had purchased the vehicle from the accused. However, he did not produce any document for having purchased the vehicle. The petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution regarding theft of the bikes. Such being the facts, the Courts below have committed error in rendering the conviction. Therefore, the said conviction is liable to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that the complainant-P.W.1 has not only identified his bike, but also identified the accused. Mahazar witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In the presence of the witnesses, the vehicle was seized from the accused. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction is sustained and the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the said findings. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is necessary to refer the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to ascertain as to whether any infirmities are there in the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction or not. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 11. P.W.1 being a complainant lodged the complaint-Ex.P.1 on 17.09.2012 alleging that his bike was stolen. On 31.12.2012, he was asked to come to Hiriyur police station where he is stated to have identified his bike. 12. P.W.2 stated to be the witness to the mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.2. He supported the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.3 being a witness to the mahazar, deposed in his evidence that he had not seen the contents of the mahazar. However, he identified his signature. 14. P.W.4 said to be the friend of the complainant and the said bike which was stolen was seized in the police station and he had affixed his signature to the said mahazar. 15. P.W.5 was working as a police sub-inspector deposed in his evidence that on 30.12.2012, when he was on patrolling duty, he had stopped TVS motor cycle which was being driven by the accused. When he asked to produce the documents of the bike, the accused did not produce the same. Therefore, he arrested him. On interrogation, it is found that it was a stolen bike. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 16. Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.12 would indicate that the accused had brought the police to his shop and the police have seized the bikes from his shop. He further deposed that the vehicles which were seized from his shop were sold by the petitioner. Assuming that the vehicles were seized from his shop is true, the evidence of P.W.5 loses its significance for the reasons that he could not have seized the said vehicle when the accused was going on the said vehicle. This aspect creates a doubt regarding theft of vehicles by the accused. This doubt should have been given as a benefit of doubt to the accused. However, both the Courts have failed to extend the benefit to the accused. Therefore, interference with the said findings is justified and the conviction rendered against the accused needs to be set aside. 17. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8108 CRL.RP No. 855 of 2017 ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.1139/2013 by the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga and the judgment and order dated 10.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.71/2016 by the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga are set aside. iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56