- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100157 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNTAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, YALLAPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) AND: 1. MOHAMMADALI S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. DANDELI, HASAMANAL, DIST. KARWAR. 2. SHAKIL S/O. MOHAMMAD ISUF BADAMI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. RASULPUR ONI, DHARWAD. 3. ABDUL AJIJ @ MUNNA S/O. NAJEER AHAMAD KOTWAL, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.17 10:39:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HALIYAL, MOHAMADALI ROAD, NOW AT: R/O. DHARWAD, MALAPUR, RAJIV NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, SONAPUR ONI. 4. JAVED S/O. MOHAMMAD ISUF BADAMI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HATTIKOL, DHARWAD, 4TH CROSS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.A.NO.99/2012 DATED 11.05.2018 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. SITTING AT YALLAPUR AND IN C.C.NO.184/2009 DATED 17.02.2012 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, YALLAPUR AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.114 AND 392 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, Amicus Curie for the respondents. 2. State is the revision petitioner challenging the order of acquittal passed in CC No.184/2009 confirmed in Crl.A.No.99/2012. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 Yallapura police filed a charge sheet against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 114 and 392 of IPC based on the complaint averments to the effect that on 07.05.2009, accused No.1 with other accused persons conspired together to commit the robbery and accused Nos. 2 to 4 were waiting near Kodalgadde of Arabailghath in a car bearing No.KA 22/M-5751. When accused No.1 along with the cleaner came in the truck - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 bearing No.KA 31/4478, there was interception to the lorry by the inmates of the car and accused No.1 being the part of the conspiracy stopped the lorry and other accused persons got into the lorry and made a show of assaulting the accused No.1 and snatched away cash kept in the toolbox of the truck to the tune of 1,91,850/-. The incident was reported to the police and after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3.2 Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, secured the presence of the accused persons and recorded the plea. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 3.3 After due trial, accused were acquitted by the learned trial judge holding that there was no test identification parade conducted and the cleaner of the lorry was unable to identify the accused persons except accused No.1 who was the driver of the lorry and material evidence placed on record was hardly sufficient that there existed conspiracy between accused No.1 and other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 accused persons and only on the basis of recovery of the amount, prosecution case could not have been established and thus acquitted the accused persons. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.99/2012. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of both sides and re- appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal of the State. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, State is in the revision. 6. Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that only on the ground that the Test Identification parade is not conducted and panchs have turned hostile, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused ignoring the fact that there was a recovery of the entire sum of Rs.1,91.850/-. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 7. He also pointed out that material evidence on record is not properly appreciated and in the matter of this nature, taking note of the time of the incident no other evidence could have been made available by the prosecution and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. Per contra, Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, supports the impugned orders by contending that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge acts as a double innocence insofar as the accused and if there are two views permissible in a given set of facts, view that favours the accused must be preferred which has been done by the learned trial judge in the impugned order which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 10. On such perusal of the material evidence on record, it is crystal clear that police were able to register the case and recover the sum of Rs.1,91,850/-. However, the panchs have turned hostile for the recovery mahazar. Likewise, to identify the accused persons, no test identification parade is conducted by the investigation agency. Having regard to the fact that the incident has occurred at 4.30 am., entire incident would not have lost more than 5 minutes. 11. It is impermissible for a person, especially who has seen the accused persons for a shortest period of 5 to 10 minutes, to re-identify them before the Court especially when incident like robbery has taken place. 12. Therefore, learned trial judge was justified in recording the order of acquittal for want of material evidence placed on record which would be sufficient enough to establish the charges leveled against the accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 13. It is the settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that unless the prosecution proves the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, he would be presumed as innocent. An order of acquittal recorded by duly constituted Court doubles the innocence of such accused before the First Appellate Court. 14. In the case on hand, since the first appellate court has also acquitted the accused persons on re- appreciation of material evidence on record, before this Court, respondents enjoying triple presumption triple innocence. 15. Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well reasoned orders of both the Courts. 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4437 CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2018 (ii) Bail bonds if any, stands cancelled. (iii)Services rendered by Smt.Shaila Bellikatti learned amicus curie for respondents is placed on record with appreciation. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA, LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 40