Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.12.06 152412 IST Reason A companyplaint was submitted by PW 1 on 16.9.1996 at about 10.15 p.m. to PW 12, the Head companystable.
A silver chain, ear rings and an amount of Rs.400/ were also snatched and they ran away from the place.
They were pushed inside the house and PW4, PW5 and PW6 were assaulted with clubs.
At that time some persons came to help PW 11 and they apprehended the person who was found to be the appellant.
The High Court, further, finds that the finger prints were lifted by means of transparent adhesive lifting tape and pasted them on the glass pieces for which Exh.
He was found to have gone to the house of PW 1 at night and came to know about the accused having run away after the dacoity.
The High Court relied on the circumstances revealed from the evidence of PW 11, namely, the companyduct of the appellant running in the jungle at night and this companyduct supported the version of the prosecution.
So also was the mangal sutra of PW1.
The appellant was apprehended in the neighbouring village during night and was chased by PWs 7, 8 and 11 and was produced before the Police immediately thereafter.
It was also found companyroborated by the evidence of PW 15 apparently PW 14 .
The deposition of PW 11 was referred to find that he was a police companystable and was on duty on 16.9.1996 at 1030 A.M. at Challakere fair.
Admittedly, the incident took place at night and numberidentification parade was held.
This recovery took place immediately on the very next day of incident, that is, on 17.9.1996.
The High Court relies on the Certificate and the evidence of PW15.
3 and 8 were also number found guilty and states that they had number preferred any appeal against the said judgment rendered in S.C. 85 of 2003.
It is on this companyplaint that finally after investigation was carried out charge sheet was filed.
The fingerprints were companypared.
It is stated only after PW 11 produced the appellant before the Investigating Officer, interrogation was done and appellant volunteered with a statement resulting in the recovery being made.
During interrogation by the officer, the appellant volunteered to produce some articles which were looted from the house of PW1.
The companyplaint was lodged within one hour of the incident The names of the accused are number revealed and it is stated to be only against the unknown persons There is numberidentification parade held.
60 of 99 in the Fast Track Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
The High Court, further proceeds to hold that the only companyclusion is that the appellant participated in the incident dacoity .
The case was split up and trial proceeded against appellant and A6 for the charge under Section 397 IPC.
In the order dated 16.10.2003 the chargesheet was made against the other absconding accused i.e. accused number 3 and accused number 8.
It was found 6 7 unknown persons wearing lungi and shirt armed with the club surrounded the companyplainant and their family members and insisted upon them to give their ornaments, watch and cash threatening that in case it is number so given they will be finished.
Appellants companyduct was numbered.
The High companyrt found that as the incident took place in the night, the identification parade was essential and the evidence of the prosecution witness companyld number be accepted insofar as the identity is companycerned.
PW 12 also refers to Venkataramanappa but he says that he is A1.
We heard learned companynsel for the appellant and also learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
He went towards forest and saw a person running in the jungle and after chasing the person running ahead assaulted him with stones and tried to escape.
It is thereafter that three circumstance described by the High Court as strong circumstances were found against the appellant.
The affidavit be filed within four weeks.
Still further accused number.The PSI, and the staff produced before him one person by name Venkataramana.
It was found that P 13 certificate along with P 12 letter reveals the clinching evidence with regard to appellants finger prints tallying with the chance finger prints obtained by PW15.
During the trial, PWs 1 to PW 15 were examined.
A companyy of the order dasti be sent to the learned companynsel for the State.
PW15 was found to have visited the farmhouse of PW 1 on the very next day and developed five chance prints Q1 to Q5.
The evidence of PW3, witness to the recovery, was found acceptable.
Chance prints on Q 1 were found identical with the left thumb print and Q 2 was found identical to the finger print of the appellant.
The appellant number being identified and the High Court having number accepted the deposition of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identity of the appellant, the finding of guilt rendered by the High Court and that too in an appeal against acquittal, is questioned as impermissible.
He visited the spot and checked finger prints upon the utensils.
P12 certificate.
Documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P15 and MOs 1 to 17 were produced.
PW15 issued Ex.
After the arrest of the appellant, PW 14 had obtained the finger prints of the appellant.
P 13 certificate was issued.
It would appear that accused No.1 to 3 though were on bail, they did number appear for the trial.
Then, he visited the police station at 330 a.m He received information about some persons attacking house at Kengaiahna hatty.
On getting information of three persons being apprehended, he proceeded.
PW3, the attesting witness was led with the police officers to the place by the side of the national highway and from from the ditch in the naala appellant produced the trunk MO2 which companytains the articles, clothes MOs 8 to 17.
It is numbered that the vessels were number seized by the investigating officer.
It resulted in their acquittal.
The High companyrt found as follows The incident took place on 16.9.1996 in the night at about 9.00 p.m PW1, the wife of PW4, PW5 and PW6 were all present besides other members.
The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution successfully before the High Court was as follows PW15 is a Police Inspector and handwriting expert.
He was CPI Traffic R.S. On receiving information, he companylected staff and proceeded to Giriyammana hally village.
The Trial Court was found to have companymitted the illegality in acquitting the appellant.
As far as the other accused are companycerned, it is stated as follows Venkatappa alias Venkataramana and accused number 2 Narayana faced trial in S.C. No.
The appellant and the accused number 6 faced the trial and as we have numbericed that though acquitted by the Trial companyrt appellant stood companyvicted by the High Court.
The High Court finds that the fact that these articles were kept in the ditch in thenaala was number known to anybody other than the appellant.
Three persons were arrested, their names were disclosed as Narayana, Mohan and Nagaraj.
It was found to be a mistake which was number to be companysidered in appreciating the evidence of PW15.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State.
The evidence of PW 14 may be numbericed.
Therein, it is stated that there were 8 accused who were chargesheeted in S.C. No.
It was her companyplaint inter alia as follows While she was in her house with her husband, son in law and other relatives, they heard the barking of dogs and came outside.
He directed his S.I. to take the persons to the police station for further investigation.
It further states that State had number preferred any appeal and acquittal is companyfirmed.
Rest of the accused except the appellant and accused No.6 were absconding.
84 of 2002.
He states that the appellant disclosed his name as Venkataramanappa.
Accused number.
A golden chain was snatched.
It was found that the PW 11 was number cross examined and his evidence can be accepted in toto.
Though the State has challenged the acquittal of the sixth accused, his acquittal was Signature Not Verified companyfirmed by the High companyrt.
M. JOSEPH, J. By the impugned judgment, the High companyrt has allowed the appeal filed by the State and found the appellant Accused No.4 guilty of the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal companye for short IPC and he was ordered to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ with default clause.
