- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: HYDARALI S/O.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT.D.NO.8, KEB CIRCLE, I CROSS, KALYANAGIRI, MYSORE 571426. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B LETHIF .,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY K R S POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT, REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BANGALORE-571426. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) CRL.A. FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21/22.2.14 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C.NO.20/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER DIRECTED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellant/Accused No.5-Hydarali has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 21st February, 2014 and order on sentence dated 22nd February, 2014, passed in SC No.20 of 2012, by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, (for short "the trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Circle Inspector of Police, Srirangapattana, filed charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th August, 2010 at about 8.30 pm, within the limits of Brindavan Garden coming under KRS Police Station, accused 1 to 5 with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 an intention to commit dacoity, went to CW1-Mehabub Peer, driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03/TV- 0299, and took away the said vehicle along with CW1, snatched his Nokia make cellphone and one Zen Cell phone and by pushing him away from the vehicle on the way, took away Tata Sumo vehicle also, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused, same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, fourteen witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 14, got marked seventeen documents as Exhibits P1 to P17 and five material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 5. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Indian Penal Code was recorded. Accused have denied the evidence appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard on both sides, the trial Court acquitted accused 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and convicted accused 1 and 5 for the offence punishable under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused No.5 has preferred this appeal. 4. Sri B. Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already acquitted the accused No.5-Asif in Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2014 decided on 09th March, 2020. He would submit that, on the ground of principle of parity, this appellant is also entitled for acquittal. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 5. On the other hand, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State, would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and facts and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records as also the impugned judgment. Before proceeding to appreciate the record, it is necessary to mention here as to essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. The same reads thus: "In dacoity cases, the evidence, generally available, is of three kinds, viz.- (i) culprits may be caught red-handed on the spot, but this is rare because the culprits go fully armed and well prepared whereas the victims are fear- stricken and are more interested in saving their skin rather than in combating with the miscreants; (ii) identification of the culprits when they are later arrested during the investigation; and (iii) discovery of the incriminating facts such as looted property, weapons used in the commission of offence, and the like objects. " 7. In the case on hand, the trial Court has acquitted accused 2 to 4 for offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, however, has convicted accused 1 and 5 for the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. I have carefully examined the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2014 decided on 09th March, 2020. In this appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench has elaborately discussed and re-appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted accused No.1. The present appellant, being accused No.5, stand on the same footing as like accused No.1. Hence, considering the judgment (supra) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the present appellant/accused No.5, is also entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction 21st February, 2014 and order on sentence 22nd February, 2014, passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, in SC No.20 of 2012, against the present appellant/accused No.5, is set aside; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4151 CRL.A No. 780 of 2014 iii) Appellant/accused No.5-Hydarali, is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code; iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant/accused No.5, stand cancelled; v) Fine amount in deposit, be returned to the appellant in accordance with law; Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46