- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1406/2025 (C) BETWEEN: SUHEAL S/O. SULEMAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT MADEENA NAGAR MANGAMMANA PALYA BANGALORE – 560 068 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.BUDRUNNISA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001 (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.01.2004 PASSED IN SC NO.621/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK (SESSIONS) COURT-I, AT BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) This appeal is preferred by accused No.1 in SC No.621/2000 on the file of Fast Track (Sessions) Court-I, Bangalore City. 2. The appellant was tried in SC No.621/2000 along with accused Nos.2 to 5 on the charge that accused Nos.1 to 5 conspired to commit dacoity by waylaying lorries which were passing Hosur main road near Kudlu gate. On the ill-fated day, victim/Somasundaram, his son-Sharavanan/PW.9 and PW.11/Sebasten were travelling in transport lorry bearing registration No.TN-69-ZD-3289. The lorry was being driven by PW.11. When the lorry transporting plastic goods was proceeding near Kudlu Gate on 07.05.2000 at 03.00 p.m., the accused flashed torch light to stop. Thinking that the accused are the Road Transport Officials, lorry was stopped. Immediately, Accused Nos.1 to 3 got into the lorry. Accused No.1 threatened Sebasten at knife point. When Somasundaram and his son Sharavana woke up, culprits demanded money - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 from them. When Somasundaram declined to pay money, the culprits snatched cash of Rs.2,000/- and his gold colour Sonata wrist watch from him and stabbed him. One of the culprits drove the lorry to Kudlu gate, while accused Nos.4 and 5 were chasing the lorry on the motorcycle and later escaped. Then injured Somasundaram was taken to nearby hospital in Jayanagar Government Hospital with the help of Hoysala Police where he was declared dead. 3. There is 7,051 days delay in preferring the appeal which amounts to 19 years 3 months. Therefore, IA No.1/2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay. In the memorandum of facts submitted along with the application, counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant was granted parole for 30 days on the ground of health of his mother. But after completion of 30 days he did not surrender in order to attend to his mother. Ultimately he was arrested in 2023. It is contended that there was nobody from his family to guide him to file the appeal, therefore there is delay and the same may be condoned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 4. Learned SPP-II seriously opposes the application on the ground that the accused, by jumping bail conditions, was absconding for more than 16 years. It is further submitted that the appellant is involved in another case. As per the imprisonment certificate produced by the appellant himself, he is involved in C.C.No.24431/2000 and absconding in that case also. He further submits that accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 had preferred appeals before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.811/2004, 359/2004 and 249/2004 respectively. This Court, though allowed the appeal of accused Nos.4 and 5, dismissed appeal of accused No.2, holding that the overt acts of accused Nos.1 to 3 are proved. Therefore, no purpose would be served by condoning the delay. 5. Considering the submissions of both side and examining the material placed before the Court, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal ?” 6. There is inordinate delay of 7,051 days in filing the appeal which amounts to 19 years 3 months and odd. That has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 to be satisfactorily explained. According to the appellant himself, after judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2004, he was serving sentence. His own documents show that he was granted parole in the year 2007 on medical ground of his mother. He claims that he did not surrender after the parole period to attend to his mother. But as per the death certificate, his mother died on 09.03.2014. Thereafter, upto 2022, he has not surrendered before the concerned Court or the jail authorities. Absolutely there is no explanation for such lapse and breach of the parole conditions. Further there is nothing to show that his mother was solely depending on him, requiring his continued presence after 30 days. Even if that was the case, he could have sought extension of his parole period or preferred appeal before the Court and sought suspension of sentence or bail on such grounds. 7. The copy of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2005 in Crl.A.No.249/2004 and connected matters placed by learned SPP-II shows that though accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 preferred the appeals challenging the very same judgment, this Court allowed the appeals of accused Nos.4 and 5 and dismissed appeal of accused No.2. In para 16 of the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 judgment, the Court made clear observation that involvement of accused Nos.1 and 3 is disclosed by the witnesses. Further in para 18 of the judgment, it is held as follows. “18. As regards accused No.4, the learned Counsel for accused No.4 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 359/2004) points out that according to P.W.9 this accused No.4 along with accused No.2 entered the cabin of the lorry from the passenger side and accused No.2 assaulted Somasundaram. However, according to the complainant - P.W.11, it was accused Nos.2 and 3 who assaulted Somasundaram. Therefore, these witnesses are certain about accused No.2 but are not certain as to whether it was accused No.4 or accused No.3. Taking into consideration this discrepancy, we are of the opinion that the benefit has to be given to accused No.4. About the participation of accused No.3 since the motor cycle stolen from P.W.16 was found with accused No.3, his participation appears to be certain but as regards accused No.4, though he also may be with other dacoits, in view of this discrepancy, a doubt arises and the benefit of doubt has to be given to him. Considering all these materials, we are of the opinion that the involvement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be certain but as regard the participation of accused Nos.4 and 5, we find some doubt and the benefit has to be given to them.” (Emphasis supplied) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41256-DB CRL.A No.1406/2025 8. It is submitted that accused No.3 did not prefer any appeal. Therefore the order of sentence passed against him attained finality. Therefore we are satisfied that even if the delay is condoned, no purpose will be served. Further the person seeking discretionary relief of condonation of delay should be fair and equitable person who has flouted the law and orders of the Court and norms of the society for long period of 19 years and above is not entitled to seek any indulgence. Hence the application and the appeal are dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9