- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200018 OF 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GOVINDA S/O SURYA BHOSLE AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL 2. SMT. PALLAVI W/O GOVINDA BHOSLE AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK BOTH R/O. KOTTADODDI, TQ. DEVADURGA DIST. RAICHUR-584 101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MANVI POLICE STATION DIST. RAICHUR-584101 REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR LOWER COURT RECORDS. ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN CRL.A. NO.31/2019 THEREBY CONFIRMING AND UPLOADING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.07.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANVI IN C.C.NO. 172/2018 ON ITS FILE. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The petitioners are convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Hence, this revision petition. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.07.2017 at about 1.30 p.m., the accused with an intention to commit offence of lurking the house and trespassed the house of PW.3 situated at Siddivinayaka Nagar, Manvi, broke open the door and committed theft of silver and gold ornaments which was kept in the almirah. Though, the complaint was against unknown persons, during investigation, these petitioners were arrested and after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and also identified 7 material objects, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. 4. Heard Sri.Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgments passed by Courts below is perverse, illegal and opposed to the facts and also evidence on record. 6. It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW.8 would indicate that he along with two others had affixed the signatures to Exs.P6 and P7. However, the signatures were not present on Ex.P6. Though, PW.8 stated that the owner of gold shop had brought the gold ornaments to the shop and it was measured in his presence, the said aspect has to be considered by the Trial Court properly, however, the same has not been considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 7. It is further submitted that PW.3 has not produced any documents to show that he purchased those ornaments which were stolen from his house. Mere lodging a complaint stating that he has lost certain ornaments would not be sufficient to indicate that PW.3 was possessed those ornaments which were stated to be stolen. In fact, there is no evidence to show that those ornaments were there with PW.3. Hence, it is appropriate to set aside the concurrent findings. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the description of the gold items which were stolen was identified by the complainant. As per the description, those gold ornaments were recovered at the instance of the accused. Therefore, the conviction is proper and there are no infirmities in the said conviction. Hence, the petition is deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the finding of the Courts below, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 it appears from the record that, PW.1 stated to be the witness to the spot panchanama. He affixed his signature as per EX.P1. He supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to him that, if he had obtained any leave on the particular date to appear before the police to be a witness to the spot panchanama, he admitted that he applied leave, however, the Investigating Officer has not collected any documents to show that he had applied leave. Therefore, his presence at the spot appears to be unbelievable. 10. PW.2 is stated to be witness to Ex.P3. Though, he supported the case of the prosecution, in the cross- examination, he admitted that he cannot say the schedule of the place where they conducted the spot mahazar. 11. PW.3 being the complainant has stated that he had lost the gold ornaments stated in the complaint and it was recovered at the instance of the accused by the police. He identified those ornaments and he is stated to have received those ornaments. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 12. PW.4 is stated to be the owner of the house. He had let out the premises to PW.3 and he found that the door of the houses of PW.3 was opened without having switched on the light in the house. Immediately, he informed the said fact to PW.3. He identified the persons who committed the theft. 13. PW.5 was working as a Police Constable. He was deputed to trace the accused. Accordingly, he along with others apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and enquired regarding the incident. They confessed and told the items which they had committed theft. 14. Similarly, PW.6 had also stated in consonance with the evidence of PW.5 regarding the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2. 15. PW.7 stated to be the Gold Smith. He has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. PW.8 stated to be the witness to Exs.P6 and P7. He stated that he was taken to the shop where the accused had sold the gold ornaments. Further, he stated that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 said articles were recovered and seized from the shop of the owner. 17. PW.9 is the CPI stated to have conducted the part of investigation and handed over further investigation to PW.10. 18. PW.10 also conducted the part of investigation and handed over the same to PW.11. 19. PW.11 after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 20. PW.12 is the person who handed over the gold ornaments as per Ex.P19 after receiving from the CPI office. 21. PW.13 was working as PSI. He stated that he had registered a case on 29.07.2017 in Crime No.251/2017. 22. On overall reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it appears from the record that, none of the witnesses have spoken about the identity of the accused. A formal complaint had been lodged by PW.3. Assuming that the investigation team secured the presence of the accused, however, the complaint did not contain any description of the persons who committed theft in the said house. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 Moreover, no identification parade is conducted to identify the accused. Mere recovery of the ornaments stated to be stolen in the house of PW.3 is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had committed the theft and those stolen articles were belonging to PW.3. When the gold ornaments are not proved to that effect, that it belongs to PW.3, it is not appropriate to record the conviction. 23. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.172/2018 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi and the judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.31/2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Raichur, are set aside. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2122 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2020 (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:PK