- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.538/2013 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.627/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.982/2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.658/2014 IN CRL.A No. 538/2013 BETWEEN: 1. MR LINGARAJA N. R S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, B.ED. STUDENT, KRISHNA COLLEGE PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA RAKSHANA VEDIKE, DODDAGUNI UNIT, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPI K J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATASANDRA POLICE REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.261/2012-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC AND ETC. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 IN CRL.A NO. 627/2013 BETWEEN: 1. PRASHANTH K., S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING IN ELF OIL COMPANY NEAR HEBBAL TIN FACTORY, BANGALORE - 560 016, NATIVE OF UDDEVARA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, R/O, C/O RAMESH, HIREHALLY, URDIGERE – 572 140. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR H C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATASANDRAP S PIN 572 101. REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.261/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC AND ETC. IN CRL.A NO. 982/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SANJAY, S/O KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, COOLIE IN APMC YARD, R/O KOLIHALLI COLONY, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 101. ...APPELLANT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR H C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATASANDRA P S PIN-572 101 REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.261/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC AND ETC. IN CRL.A NO. 658/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SUNIL @ SUNI, S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, DRIVER, RESIDING AT MANCHAKALLUKUPPE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK-572 140 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.261/2012 - CONVICTING - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC AND ETC. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT Appellants/accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 have preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C.No.261/2012 dated 22.04.2013 (for short "the trial Court"). 2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that the Circle Inspector of Police, Kyatasandra Police Station, Tumkur submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The prosecution alleges that on 29.01.2011 at 00.15 hours, near the bus stop of Chikkahalli, within the limits of Kyatasandra Police Station, Tumkur, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with juvenile accused No.3 and absconding accused No.6, committed dacoity of mobile phone and cash of Rs.13,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 belonging to CW.1-Noorulla, threatening him with a knife while he was alighting from a lorry, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. After charge sheet was filed, the case was registered as C.C.No.519/2011, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which came to be registered as SC.No.261/2012. Accused were enlarged on bail. 4. On hearing the charges, the Trial Court framed charges for the alleged offences. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7, marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and marked six material objects as MOs.1 to 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 6. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Trial Court convicted accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 for the offence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused No.4 has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.538/2013, accused No.5 in Crl.A.No.627/2013, accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.982/2013, and accused No. 1 in Crl.A.No.658/2014. 7. The learned counsel for the accused in Crl.A.No.538/2013 submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, facts, circumstances and the probabilities of the case. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and there was an inordinate delay of nine hours in filing the complaint, for which the complainant provided no proper explanation. The appellant’s name does not appear in the First Information Report. 8. The learned counsel for the accused in Crl.A.No.538/2013 submits that learned Sessions Judge erred in not considering all witnesses, except the official witnesses, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 who turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. Relying upon the evidence on record, the Sessions Judge erroneously concluded to convict the accused. Although the assailants were total strangers to the witnesses and the alleged incident occurred during the dark hour with insufficient light to see their faces, the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade to ascertain the witnesses' identification capacity. Not conducting parade is fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, conviction cannot be based on the evidence of PW.2, who identified the assailants for the first time in the witness box, with no earlier identification at the police station, thus, affording his evidence no probative value. The seizure mahazar witnesses did not support the prosecution case and there are numerous lacunae in the investigation conducted by PW.7, which seriously affect the root of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge failed to take judicial note of these defects and, instead, convicted the appellants based on a faulty investigation, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 9. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on the following decisions: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 i. State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Anr1 ii. Basavaraj @ Basya v. State of Karnataka2 iii. Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra3 iv. Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra4 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused in Crl.A.Nos.658/2014, 627/2013, and 982/2013 adopt the same arguments and seek that appeals be allowed. 11. Sri. B.Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of appeals. 12. Having heard the arguments on both side and perusal of materials, the following points would arises for my consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC? 2. What order? 1 2011 (3) Crimes 61 (SC) 2 2019 (2) Crimes 371 (SC) 3 1982 SCC (Cri) 334 4 1998(2) Crimes 106 (SC) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 13. My answer to the above point is as under: Point No.1: in the Negative; Point No.2: as per final Order. Regarding Point No.1: 14. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 29.01.2011 at 09:00 a.m., PW.2/Noorullah, the complainant in this case appeared before PW.6/R.G.Ravikumar, then Police Sub- Inspector of the complainant police station, and lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P2. The summary of the said complaint was that on 28.01.2011, the complainant drove his lorry from Kalasipalya Market of Bengaluru to Tumkur with a load of vegetables. After unloading the goods in the market at Tumkur, he had dinner and was proceeding to Thyamagondlu. Near Chikkahalli gate on N.H-4, he stopped the lorry to attend nature call, before he could get down from the lorry, five people who were standing behind the bus, all of a sudden, came to him and boarded the lorry. They put knife on complainant's neck, closed his mouth and by giving left threat, robbed him with cash of Rs.13,000/- and also his cell phone, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 threatened him further and they quietly left the place. The complainant further stated that, they were speaking in Kannada language and were in the age group of 20 to 25 years. He has seen them and can identify them, if he sees them again. Later, complaint was registered in Crime No.33/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC against Sunil, Sanjay and three other persons, whose names the complainant stated in his complaint, as he had heard it while they were talking to each other. The complainant-police said to have conducted investigation and during the investigation, they have arrested all the five accused and recovered cash of Rs.4,000/-, cell phone and submitted the charge sheet. 15. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.7, marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and marked six material objects as MOs.1 to 6. 16. CW.5-Nawaz Jan is examined as PW1. He has deposed in his evidence that he is a vegetable vendor in Tumkur, he knows CW.1/Noorullah, who transports vegetables in his lorry to him. About two years back, one day, he had been to Dobbspet for his personal work, at 4 O' clock, he came to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 know from CW.1-Noorulla that somebody had robbed cash of Rs.13,000/- and cell phone from him near Chikkahalli gate bus stop. He immediately went to the said place where he saw lorry, CW.1-Noorulla and police. Police conducted panchanama as per Ex.P1. He has put his signature on Ex.P1. 17. CW.1-Noorullah is examined as PW2. He has deposed in his evidence that, he is the owner-cum-driver of Mini-Lorry bearing registration No.KA-09/A-1901. About two years back, one day, from Kalasipalya at Bengaluru, he drove his Mini-Lorry to Tumkur with a load of vegetables. He got unloaded the goods in the night at about 11:00 p.m., had his dinner and was proceeding to his village, Thyamagondalu on N.H-4. On the way, at about 12.00 am, in order to attend nature call, he stopped his lorry in the bus stand of Chikkahalli gate and was about to get down. Before he could alight down from the lorry, few people rushed into the lorry from both the doors of cabin and held knife on his neck and stomach, they threatened to kill him, if he raises his voice. They were talking in Kannada with each other and they also used the name of Sunil and one more name while addressing themselves. Further, he has stated that he had a cash of Rs.13,000/- in his - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 pant pocket and also a cell phone of Nokia make, worth Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/-. The people who had rushed in the cabin and threatened him, robbed cell phone and cash he was possessing, got down from the lorry and fled the spot. They were five in number. Since he had parked the lorry under the street light, he had seen the accused clearly and can identify them. Seeing the accused in the Court, he identified that, they were the culprits who had robbed him on that day. Further, he has submitted that after the incident, out of fear, he had been to his place, on the next day morning, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, police came to the spot and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P1. One Sri Nawab Sab was also present at that time, signed the panchanama and after 4-5 days of the incident, the police had summoned him to police station and shown him cell phone and a knife, it was his cell phone. Police has also told him that they recovered Rs.4,000/-. Police had called him to the police station one day and showed the accused, got them identified by him as the culprits. Further he has stated that, he has identified the accused in the police station. He also stated that he can identify the cell phone robbed by the accused. The - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 amount of Rs.13,000/-, which he had possessed on that day, comprised the denominations of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, and Rs.100/- notes. However, he cannot say the numbers of those denominations notes. Further, he has deposed that while robbing him, the accused had used the two knives, which he can identify. Seeing two knives in the Court, he identified the same, which are MOs1 and 2. After seeing the two cell phones in the Court which were subjected to property in this case, he identified one cell phone as his cell phone which was robbed in the incident. The said cell phone marked as MO.3. 18. CW2-Riyaz Ahmad and CW3-Shashi Kumar were examined as PWs3 and 4. They have deposed as to the mahazars conducted by the police as per Ex.P3 and these two witnesses have not fully supported to the case of the prosecution. 19. As per the evidence of PW5-Shivanna, Police Constable, on 01.02.11 at 03.00 hours, CPI-K.R.Nagaraju called him, CW.7-Ramesha, CW.8-Siddaraju, the constables and CW.9-Ravikumar, the PSI of their police station. The CPI told them about information received by him that near Chikkahalli gate on N.H-4, about 5-6 persons were moving in a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 suspicious manner, stating so he took them all to the said places in their departmental jeep. They parked their jeep at a distance and walked towards the spot shown to them by the informant. In the said place, they saw six people. These people tried to cover-up and catch them. In that process, one among the six persons escaped and remaining five people were caught by the police. These five people were brought to the police station. One Riyaz and Shashikumar were summoned to the police station to act as panchas. In their presence, five accused who were caught, were enquired and they were subjected to physical search. Those five accused identified them as Sunil S/o Siddaraju, Sanjay S/o Kemparaju, Lingaraju S/o Ramakrishna and Prashant S/o Krishna. In their physical search, in possession of Sunil a knife of 10 inches length with wooden handle, a cell phone and two currency notes of Rs.500/- each were found. In possession of Shekhar, a cell phone of Micromax make and two currency notes of Rs.500/- each were found. From the possession of Lingaraju, an iron knife of 10 inches in length and 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- each were found, and in possession of Prashant, an iron knife measuring 10.45 inches length and a cell phone of Nokia make - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 and also four currency notes of Rs.500/- each were found. All these articles were seized by drawing a seizure panchanama in the police station. Further he has stated that they had committed acts in Nandhihalli, Chikkahalli, Kathele Beedu, Gundkalkere area, they also took these people to those places and shown them the place. He has identified the search panchanama-Ex.P3 and his signature. He has also identified four currency notes MOs.1,2, 4 and 5. He also identified cell phone and as per MO.3 as the one seized from the possession of the accused. 20. CW9-Ravikumar R.G, then Police Inspector examined as PW6 and CW10-K. R. Nagaraju CPI examined as PW7. Both have deposed as to their respective investigation. Investigating Officer-PW.7 has been treated as partly hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 21. Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer to the decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the accused. In Talevar and Another (supra), in para 6 and 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "6. Admitted facts remained so far as the two respondents/accused are concerned, that no test identification parade was held at all. Further none of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 eye witnesses, particularly, Shashi Devi (PW.12), Santosh Jagwayan (PW.13), Kripa Dayal Yadav (PW.2), Preeti (PW.14) and Sandhya (PW.15), identified either of the said respondents in the court. Therefore, there is no evidence so far as their identification is concerned. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. In the instant case, accused Kuniya was arrested on 24.12.1996 and a silver glass and one thousand rupees were alleged to have been recovered on his disclosure statement on 29.12.1996. Again on disclosure statement dated 02.01.1997, scooter alleged to have been used in the dacoity, was recovered. Similarly, another accused Talevar was arrested on 19.01.1997 and on his disclosure statement on 26.01.1997, two thousand rupees, a silver key ring and a key of Ambassador car alleged to have been used in the crime were recovered. Thus, it is evident that recovery on the disclosure statements of either of the respondents/accused persons was not in close proximity of time from the date of incident. More so, recovery is either of cash, small things or vehicles which can be passed from one person to another without any difficulty. In such a fact situation, we reach the inescapable conclusion that no presumption can be drawn against the said two respondents/accused under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. No adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of recoveries made on their disclosure statements to connect them with the commission of the crime." 22. In Basavaraj @ Basya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of adequate evidence on the part of the prosecution with regard to the identification of the accused persons and recovery of articles, conviction of the accused is not justified. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 23. In Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that testimony of witnesses who identify the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before in absence of any test identification parade would be valueless and unreliable. 24. In the case on hand, on the basis of the complaint filed by PW.2 as per Ex.P2, Kyathsandra Police have registered the case in Crime No.33/2011 against the accused Sanjay, Sunil and three others for the offence under Section 395 IPC. The FIR was submitted to the Court on 29.01.2011 at 05:05 p.m. The police have arrested the accused on 01.02.2011. 25. PW7-K.R. Nagaraj, then CPI, has deposed in his evidence that he has arrested the accused in Crime No.32/2011 while they were moving in a suspicious manner and thereafter they interrogated them and recorded their voluntary statements. Thereafter, they recovered two mobile phones and cash of Rs.4,000/- pertaining to this case. 26. After recording voluntary statements of the accused, the Investigating Officer has seized MOs.1 to 6 in presence of panchas under Ex.P3. PWs.3 and 4 have not supported to the case of the prosecution. Even in the cross- - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 examination made by Public Prosecutor after treating them as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court, they categorically deny the contents of Ex.P3 and also seizure of properties as shown in the mahazar. P.F No.13/2011 reveals that the police have seized one black and blue colour Nokia mobile pertaining to this case and Rs.4,000/- cash pertaining to the complainant. In Ex.P2/complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the mobile number. Even during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has not collected the mobile number pertaining to Nokia mobile/MO.3. In the complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the physical description the accused. PW.2 has not specifically stated how he has identified Sunil and Sanjay on the basis of names after arrest of these accused. 27. It is an admitted fact that all the accused are strangers to PW.2. After lapse of 5 days from the date of alleged incident, Investigating Officer has arrested the accused. When the complainant does not know about the name and address of the accused at the time of filing complaint, the Investigating Officer ought to have conducted Test Identification Parade to identify the accused by the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 complainant. However, the Investigating Officer has not conducted Test Identification Parade to identify the accused. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to non- conducting of Test Identification Parade. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before and in absence of Test Identification Parade, would be valueless and unreliable. 28. With regard to the recovery of properties is concerned, except the official witnesses, the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has clearly observed that the Investigating Officer being a responsible officer, has not shown required commitment to the investigation and has committed procedural irregularities. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused without sufficient, acceptable, cogent, convincing and clinching legal evidence before the Court to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. Hence, the evidence placed before this Court will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged crime said to have been committed by the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 accused. In view of principle of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt shall go to the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative. Regarding point No.2: 29. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Crl.A.Nos.538/2013, 627/2013, 982/2013 and 658/2014 are allowed; ii) Appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 Indian Penal Code; iii) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the above accused shall be returned to them in accordance with law; iv) The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3512 CRL.A No. 538/2013, C/W CRL.A No. 627/ 2013, CRL.A No. 982/ 2013, CRL.A.NO. 658/2014 30. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records, to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE TIN, PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37