LexTHIMMAREDDY & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 9 S.C.R. 14 THIMMAREDDY & ORS. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2014) APRIL 21, ·2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 397 rlw s.1208 - Robbery - In bus - Eight accused - Trial C9urt acquitted all the accused c holding that charges were not proved against them beyond reasonable doubt .... High Court convicted 5 of the 8 accused - 3 convicts i.e. A-1, A-2 and A-5 filed appeal before Supreme Court - Held: Charge of conspiracy uls. 120-8 /PC was not prove(} as the mere fact that the eight accused o persons gathered on the previous day could riot automatically connect to the commission of alleged crime - High Court committed grave error in recording conviction solely on basis of statement of the so called eye witnesses, and wrongly believing their version - High Court was duty bound to E consider their testimonies in entirety i.e. along with the cross- examination in order to find out their truthfulness and to see whether their version in examination-in-chief remained unshaken and was worthy of credence - .But no such exercise was done at all - Trial court indulged in wholesome discussion F while discarding the testimony of eyewitnesses - Discussion of the trial court adversely commenting upon the faulty procedure and imperfect investigation completely ignored and sidelined by the High Court - Charge against appellants ul s.397 rlw s.120-B /PC not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Appellants accordingly acquitted -· Code of Criminal G Procedure, 1973 - ss.161 and 166. H The prosecution case was that the eight accused persons including the three appellants hatched a 14 THIMMAREDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 15 conspiracy and in furtherance of the same intercepted a A bus and committed robbery therein by showing deadly weapons like sickle, knives. All the accused were charged for committing offences punishable under Section 397 r/w Section 120-B IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons holding that charges B against them were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The State filed appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC. During pendency of the appeal, one of the accused persons, namely A-3 died. The High Court convicted five of the remaining seven accused persons under Section c 397 read with Section 120-8 of the IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. A-4 and A-6 were acquitted by the High Court. Out of the five accused convicted by the High Court, three i.e. A-1, A-2 and A-5 filed appeal before this Court. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In so far as charge of conspiracy is concerned, the Sessions Judge, after analyzing the E testimony of PW-19, as well as PW-6 on this aspect came F to the conclusion that the charge of conspiracy was not proved inasmuch as, the mere fact that eight accused persons were gathered on the previous day could not automatically connect to the commission of alleged crime. Even the High Court has not discarded the aforesaid findings of the trial court on the charge of conspiracy. The reason for convicting five accused persons, out of eight who stood trial, is testimonies of other witnesses who were in the bus and had purportedly seen the said accused persons. For want of G establishment of charge of conspiracy A-6 and A-4 were let off by the High Court as they were not named by any of the eye witnesses. This Court is, therefore, quite in agreement with the conclusion of the trial court that H 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC has not been proved. [Paras 8, 9] [23-E, G-H; 24-G-H; 25-A] 2.1. Insofar as the charge under Section 397 IPC is concerned, the trial court after analyzing the testimony 8 of the witnesses refused to believe them. Pertinent observation which is _made by the trial court in this behalf is that when the statements of these witnesses were recorded under Section 161,Cr.P .C., at the time of investigation by the police officer, none of these witnesses stated that they had seen the· accused persons C and were in a position to identify them if they were brought before them. The trial court referred to Karnataka Police Manual and observed that the investigation was not done in accordance with the procedure for identifications contained therein. The trial court also D found serious loopholes in the manner in which investigation was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.