- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2015 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1087 OF 2014 (C) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.550 OF 2015 (C) IN CRL.A. NO.1115/2015 BETWEEN: HANUMANTHEGOWDA @ HANUMANTHA S/O. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT KEMPEGOWDANA KOPPALU, BESIDE THE HOUSE JAVAREGOWDA, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-573213. …APPELLANT (BY SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, REP. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.130/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 395 OF IPC. IN CRL.A. NO.1087/2014 BETWEEN: 1. VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, LINGAYATH JANANGA, R/AT BESIDE OLD RAMAMANDIRA SUNNADA BEGUR GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571109. 2. KHUDRATH S/O ADBUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT KHALAKNAGAR, 1ST CROSS, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STAITON, REPTD. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.130/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 3 AND 4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341 AND 395 OF IPC. IN CRL.A. NO.550/2015 BETWEEN: K.S. SUBHASH S/O SOMAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KARYADU HOUSE, KANCHUKULLI POST, KOTTAYAM TLAUK & DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-686001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAPATNA-571438. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 04.09.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.130/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341 AND 395 OF IPC. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.09.2014 passed in SC.No.130/2012 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, Srirangapatna Police submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under Sections 341, 395 and 411 of Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2012 at 09.30 pm, on K.R.Sagar road in between Shyadnahalli - Hosahalli gate near Basavaiah's land, when CW1 and CW10 were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA09/ET5524, towards Mysore-K.R.Sagar road, accused Nos.1 to 5 came on their motorbikes from behind - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 and overtook the motorbike of CW1, stopped their bikes and restrained CW1 and CW10 from proceeding further. Accused Nos.1 to 5 threatened CW1 and CW10 by showing sickle, robbed 27.450 grams of gold neck chain and cash of Rs.8,500/- from CW1; a bag and an old mobile set from CW10. Further, it is alleged that the accused No.6 being fully aware that the chain brought by accused Nos.1 to 5 was a robbed article, purchased the gold chain for a lesser price from the Accused. Thereby, accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 395 and 411 of Indian Penal Code. 4. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in CC.No.26/2012. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in SC.No.130/2012. 5. Upon hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed charges against accused for the offence under sections 341, 395 and 411 of IPC. Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 9 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9. Nineteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P19. One material object marked as MO.No.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under sections 341 and 395 of IPC and acquitted accused No.6 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. The trial Court has passed a sentence against accused Nos.1 to 5 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code. Further, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 395 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 accused No.1 has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.550/2015, accused Nos.3 and 4 have preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.1087/2014 and accused No.5 has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.1115/2015. 8. The accused No.2 has also preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.943/2015. Same came to be dismissed as having become infructuous as per the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.10.2023. 9. Learned counsel for accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, invalid and contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in relying on the interested testimony of PW1, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW9 and other official witnesses, when their evidence is not corroborated by the independent panch witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not conducted the Test Identification Parade. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The panch witnesses of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 seizure, PW2 and PW7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The complaint is filed against unknown persons on 24.01.2012. Accused were arrested on 03.02.2012 by the Investigating Officer after lapse of nine days. It is the case of the prosecution that CW10-pillion rider and another person accompanied the complainant on a motorbike. According to the case of the prosecution, chain was snatched from the neck of CW10. CW10 was not examined and the prosecution has failed to produce CW10 before the Court despite issuance of proclamation. The knife said to have been used for the commission of dacoit has not been seized by the Investigating Officer and no explanation is rendered in this regard. The prosecution has not placed any materials to prove the offence under Section 395 of IPC. 10. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of PW1. Exhibits P9 to 11 reveal that the gold chain is intact. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow these appeals. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 11. Learned HCGP would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he sought for dismissal of appeals. 12. Having heard the arguments and on careful examination of the entire materials on record, the following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused 1 to 5 for the commission of offence under Sections 341 and 395 of IPC? ii. What order? 13. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.i - Negative Point No.ii - As per final order. 14. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2012 at about 09.30 p.m., on K.R.Sagar Road, between Shyadnahalli and Hosahalli Gate, near Basavaiah’s land, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 when CW1 and CW10 were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-ET-5524, towards Mysore, accused Nos.1 to 5 came from behind, overtook the motor bike of CW1, stopped their bikes in front of his bike and restrained CW1 and CW10 from proceeding further. Accused Nos.1 to 5 threatened the life of CW1 and CW10 by showing sickle, robbed 27.450 grams of gold neck chain and cash of Rs.8,500/- from CW1; a bag and an old mobile from CW10. Further, it is alleged that accused No.6, being fully aware that the chain brought by accused Nos.1 to 5 was a stolen article and with the intention of making profit, purchased the gold chain by giving less price. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. The trial Court has acquitted accused No.6 of the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. 15. On the basis of the complaint-Ex.P1 filed by Gevar Chand-PW1, Srirangapatna Police have registered the case in Crime No.56/2012-Ex.P7 against the six unknown - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 persons aged between 22-25 years who are well-versed in Kannada, for the commission of offence under Section 395 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 395 of IPC and against accused No.6 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. Though the case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, the Investigating Officer has wrongly charged accused No.6 for the said offence. 16. In column number 13 of the charge sheet, the particulars of accused have not been mentioned. The Investigating Officer has not offered any explanation with regard to the other accused, who was involved in the commission of the dacoity at the relevant time. It is the case of the prosecution that while CW1 and CW10 were proceeding on the motorcycle, the accused have - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 committed the dacoity. However, CW10-the material witness has not been examined by the prosecution. 17. PW1 has stated that six persons came snatched the gold chain, cash and also mobile phone. However, the Investigating Officer has not investigated the involvement of the other accused, who were allegedly involved in the commission of the offence. The conduct of the Investigating Officer creates a doubt regarding the alleged incident. PW1 has not mentioned the names of the accused in the complaint nor in his evidence. He has stated that the accused had covered their faces and due to darkness, he was unable to identify them. He further deposed that he identified the accused only at the instance of the police. Even in Ex.P1-complaint, the complainant has not disclosed any physical description of the accused and have merely stated that their age was between 22 to 25 years. Whereas in the charge sheet, the age of accused No.1 is shown as 35 years, accused No.2-26 years, accused No.3-22 years, accused No.4-22 years, accused - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 No.5-23 years and accused No.6-45 years. During the cross-examination, PW.1 clearly admitted that he could not identify all the six accused and he has also not given the physical description of the accused. Further, he admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P2- panchanama, as the same is in Kannada. It is admitted by PW1 that he does not know Kannada. The Investigating Officer has not cited the scribe of Ex.P1 as a witness. Ex.P1 reveals that the police received the written complaint on 24.01.2012 at 11.30 hours, however, the name of the scribe is not disclosed in the complaint-Ex.P1. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything in this regard. 18. PW3 is the appraiser who weighed the gold that was produced before him by the Srirangapatna Police on 12.03.2012 and a mahazar was drawn in this regard at Ex.P5. This document alone is relied upon to show that MO.1 has been handed over to the Srirangapatna Police by V.V. Puram Police. However, no independent witnesses - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 have been examined by the prosecution while preparing such mahazar. 19. PW4, who is a police officer, has spoken about the arrest of the accused in Crime No.95/2010 and has signed the mahazar-Ex.P6 drawn at the time of arrest of the accused, wherein arms and weapons were allegedly recovered in respect of Crime No.95/2010. But the said arrest was made after lapse of two years from the date of alleged offence in Crime No.95/2010 and no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the seizure under Ex.P5. 20. The trial Court has observed in its judgment that there is no evidence against accused No.6 except seizure of an article from his shop and accordingly, the trial Court acquitted accused No.6. Therefore, it is clear that accused No.6 did not receive the said property being aware that it was a stolen property and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that accused No.6 received this property from the possession of the other accused. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 Despite this, the Trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 5, which is not sustainable in law. 21. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching, or trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 395 and 341 of IPC. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Hence, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 341 IPC. 22. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. All the appeals are allowed; ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna in SC.No.130/2012 dated 04.09.2014 is set aside; iii. Accused Nos.1 to 5/appellants are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 395 Indian Penal Code; - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3401 CRL.A No. 1115 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 1087 of 2014 CRL.A No. 550 of 2015 iv. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused, shall be returned to them in accordance with law; Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment along with the trial court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA,MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36