- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100374 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: JAMEEL S/O ABBUBKAR PATEL AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SHIRAVAR, TQ: MANAVI, DIST: RAICHUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOKUL ROAD, POLICE, HUBBALLI, R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRL. APPEAL AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN S.C.No.42 OF 2012 DATED 28.11.2017 AND 04.12.2017 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 392 IPC, THE ACCUSED / APPELLANT IS SENTENCED UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT OF 4 YEARS AND ALSO SHALL PAY A FINE OF Rs.3,500/- OUT OF WHICH 4 YEARS 6 MONTHS SHALL BE RIGOROUS IN NATURE. IN ADDITION THE PERIOD OF JC UNDERGONE BY ACCUSED No.5 SHALL BE SETOFF AGAINST THE PERIOD OF SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT ONLY THAT IS AGAINST 03 YEARS 06 MONTHS ONLY THIS CRL. APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER COURT AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.19 15:36:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Chetan Munnolli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 2. Appellant is Accused No.5 in S.C.No.42/2012 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced as under: “Accused No.5 shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 4 years and shall pay the fine of Rs.3,500/-. Out of 4 years, 6 months shall be rigorous in nature. In addition, the period of J.C. undergone by accused No.5 shall be setoff against the period of simple imprisonment only i.e., against 3 years 6 months only. Accordingly, issue warrant against accused No.5.” 3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Mohammad Abdul Razaq Kasayi with Gokul Road Police Station on 23.10.2011 which came to ge registered in Crime No.96/2011, alleging that at about 6.30 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 am on 23.10.2011, complainant was proceeding from Shiravara village to Hubballi for the purpose of purchasing an Innova Car and had cash in a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- with him in blue colour jeans bag. He wanted to have a cup of tea in a hotel situated opposite to Hubballi new bus stand. At that juncture, two persons came on a Pulsar motorcycle. The pillion rider snatched the bag. 4. The Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and apprehended five persons who are accused Nos.1 to 5. Police, during the course of investigation, seized the motorcycle as well as the gold ornaments and also cash in a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- from the custody of the present appellant who was arrested on 26.10.2011 and he was released on bail on 12.10.2012. 5. After completion of the investigation charge sheet came to be filed. 6. Presence of the accused persons was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all nine witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and placed on record 13 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 13 and six material objects were placed on record as M.Os.1 to 6. 8. Among the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3 are independent witnesses for the scene of the offence and recovery. PW-2 is the complainant who identified appellant/accused No.5. 9. PW-4 is the Assistant employed in the photo studio of accused No.1, who met appellant/accused No. 5 in the photo studio of accused No.1. PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9 are the police officials. 10. In the case on hand, police were able to recover gold ornaments and cash from the custody of appellant/accused No.5 under the seizure and recovery panchanama. Appellant has been identified by the complainant. 11. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 and, convicted and sentenced accused No.5 as referred to supra. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 12. Sri Chetan Munnolli, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.5, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that conviction order is bad in law. 13. Alternatively, he would contend that accused No.5 is a first time offender and since he has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the custody period already undergone by him may be treated as period of imprisonment, as he has no criminal antecedents by enhancing the fine amount and, sought for allowing the appeal. 14. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, appellant is a known criminal and he has robbed the complainant which is a serious offence. Therefore, no mercy or lenience can be shown and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, following points would arise for consideration. (i) Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from any legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence needs modification? (iv) What Order? 16. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on hand, admittedly complainant did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against accused No.5. State has not preferred any appeal as against the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4. Recovery of cash and gold ornaments is established by the prosecution not only by placing recovery panchanama but also BY examining PW-1. 17. Detailed cross-examination of PW-1 did not yield any positive result in advancing the defence of appellant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. 18. Pertinently, in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity, why police would implant huge cash of Rs.1,85,000/- so as to obtain an order of conviction against accused No.5 is a question that remains unanswered. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 19. Further, Pulsar motorcycle used in commission of the offence is also seized under the panchanama and the same is marked before the Court which has been identified by the complainant. 20. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, in the absence of any plausible explanation by accused No.5 and not properly explaining the incriminatory circumstances at the time of recording the accused statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered opinion that conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Judge as against the accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code needs no interference by this Court even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record. 21. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and negative respectively. 22. REGARDING POINT NO.(iii): Sri Chetan Munnolli, learned counsel for the appellant, as an alternate submission submits that, in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that the appellant is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 possessing any criminal antecedents and is a first time offender, the custody period of one year already undergone by the appellant may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably, which can be paid as compensation to the complainant. 23. The said submission is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader with vehemence by contending that showing lenience to a person like appellant would only encourage the similarly placed perpetrators of the crime and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto. 24. Having heard the arguments of both sides, in the case of hand, acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4 is not challenged by the prosecution. The rider of the motorcycle who took part in the act is not convicted. The recovery of money from accused No.5 and gold ornaments would be sufficient enough to sustain the conviction for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Having said so, in the absence of any criminal antecedents, and accused being aged 25 years at the time of incident and now - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 married person and having children, as is contended by the Sri Chetan Munnolli, this Court is of the opinion that custody period already undergone by him from 26.10.2011 to 12.10.2012, if treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- of which a sum of Rs.40,000/- can be paid as compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. 26. Accordingly, Point No.(iii) is answered partly in the affirmative. 27. REGARDING POINT NO.(iv): In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the appellant/accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence is modified as under: (a) Custody period already undergone by the appellant/ accused No.5 is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2341 CRL.A No. 100374 of 2017 a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable on or before 10th March 2026. (b) On receipt of the enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/-, sum of Rs.40,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant(PW-2) under due identification. (c) Balance amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be appropriated towards defraying expenses of the State. (d) Failure to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.03.2026, the sentence ordered by Trial Judge stands restored automatically. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 78