- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100023 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HANUMANTH DEVENDRAPPA ALEMARI @ PARVATMALLAYYA S/O. DEVENDRAPPA ALEMARI, AGE: 36 YEARS, GUJARI COOLIE, R/O: NAVANAGAR, JANATA PLOT, NEAR YAVAGAL TOTA, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-580025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMESH P.MUTAGUPPI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. HANUMANTH P.MUTAGUPPI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580022, THROUGH SIDDAPUR P.S., SIDDAPURA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.-581355. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.12.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.68/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K., KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI CONFIRMING AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02.04.2012 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C. COURT, SIDDAPUR IN C.C.NO.561/2009 IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 OF IPC AND THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Laxmesh P. Mutaguppi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No.561/2009, challenging the order of conviction dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Siddapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) and the judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.68/2012 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.11.2008 at about 6:30 a.m., the informant, along with her husband, was walking on the Siddapur–Chandragutti - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 Road near Vaddingadde Cross. At that time, the accused came running from the opposite direction, snatched a gold mangalasutra weighing approximately 40.700 grams, valued at Rs.35,000/-, from the neck of the informant, and fled into the adjoining forest. In the course of the incident, the informant sustained minor injuries on her neck. Pursuant thereto, a complaint was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and a charge sheet was filed against the accused accordingly. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, who were cited as PWs.1 to 13, and marked 13 documents as Exhibits P1 to P13, in addition, 2 material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The accused, in defence, marked documents as Exhibits D1 and D2. The trial Court examining and appreciating of the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two and a half years. 5. The accused, aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No.68/2012 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, re-appreciating the evidence recorded by the trial Court, allowed the appeal in part by modifying the sentence, directing that the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution heavily relies on the Test Identification Parade, which was conducted with inordinate delay. It is contended that the Test Identification Parade was held at the police station, contrary to the settled - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW.1, the complainant and victim, is inconsistent and contradictory. The prosecution also relies on the recovery of the stolen articles under Ex.P3, as testified by PWs.3 and 4; however, their evidence is stated to be inconsistent and contradictory. Though PWs.5 and 6 have been examined as eyewitnesses, their presence at the scene of occurrence has not been established. Learned counsel also submits that, as per the complaint (Ex.P1), the complainant’s husband was present with her at the time of the incident, but the prosecution has failed to examine him, which, it is contended, is a fatal omission undermining the case of the prosecution. 7. On the other hand, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that PW.1, who is the complainant and an eyewitness, has supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.5 and 6, also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 examined as eyewitnesses, corroborates the testimony of PW.1. It is further submitted that the recovery of M.O.1 was made at the instance of the accused and is duly supported by the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the recovery witnesses. The Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Tahsildar, and the same is in accordance with the settled principles of law. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. The case made out against the accused is that, on 27.11.2008, while PW.1-the complainant was walking along the Siddapur–Chandragutti Road, the accused came running from the opposite direction, snatched her gold mangalasutra valued at Rs.35,000/-, weighing approximately 40.700 grams and fled into the adjoining forest. PW.1 has given a detailed account of the incident in her complaint marked as Ex.P1, and her testimony before the Court corroborates the contents of Ex.P1. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 10. The presence of PWs.5 and 6 examined as eyewitnesses is established, and they have also provided a consistent account of the incident. Their evidence corroborates the testimony of PW.1 and the contents of Ex.P1.Though it is contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 5, and 6, the discrepancies are minor and do not materially affect the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the husband of PW.1, who was allegedly present at the time of the incident, has not been examined. However, the non- examination of the complainant’s husband, by itself, does not amount to a fatal omission so as to discredit the case of the prosecution. 11. As regards the recovery of M.O.1, PWs.3 and 4 have spoken to the recovery mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P5. Their evidence, though stated to be inconsistent, corroborates the recovery proceedings. PW.9-the goldsmith, though not fully supported the prosecution in all respects, has affirmed the recovery of the gold chain at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 the instance of the accused, as per Ex.P5. Ex.P8-a document reflecting the certified weight and probable value of M.O.1, is consistent with the testimony of PW.1 and the complaint at Ex.P1. 12. PW.5, one of the eyewitnesses, has further deposed that upon hearing the screams of PW.1, he chased the accused in an attempt to apprehend him, and provided a detailed description of the accused’s identity. Although these witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination, no material contradictions have been elicited that would doubt the prosecution’s case. 13. The Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Tahsildar (PW.11) on 15.12.2008. The accused was apprehended on 01.12.2008. Thus, the Test Identification Parade was held within a reasonable period, and the delay, if any, has not prejudicially affected the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.13 further corroborates the testimony of PW.1 to the extent that she sustained - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 injuries on her neck as a result of the mangalya chain being forcibly snatched. 14. The trial Court considered the evidence of PWs.1, 5, and 6 as material witnesses to the incident, and the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 as supporting the recovery of the gold mangalasutra marked as M.O.1. The recovered article (M.O.1) matched the description and weight provided by the complainant. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court formed the opinion that the accused had committed the offence alleged in the complaint and accordingly convicted him. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year. 15. This Court has independently examined the evidence relied upon by the trial Court. Upon re- appreciation, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 order of conviction is based on cogent evidence and supported by well-reasoned findings. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court does not warrant any interference. Hence, the order of conviction is hereby upheld. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2008 and in view of the present family circumstances, wherein the wife and children are dependent on the earnings of the accused, a plea is made for modification of the sentence. Having regard to the lapse of time since the incident and the submission that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in regard to the imposition of sentence. Considering the nature of the offence and the possible hardship likely to be caused to the family of the accused if he is subjected to a prolonged period of incarceration, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be modified and reduced. In - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.561/2009 dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Siddapur and order in Criminal Appeal No.68/2012 dated 13.12.2018 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar, sitiing at Sirsi, are hereby modified. (iii) The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused-petitioner shall undergo rigorous - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9220 CRL.RP No. 100023 of 2019 imprisonment for a period of three months. (iv) The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the trial Court. (v) The bail bonds and sureties if any, stand cancelled. (vi) The accused is entitled to set off of sentence if he has undergone in this case. Registry to return the trial Court records along with copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1