VENKATESHA @ CHANDRA @ KRISHNA S/O VENKATASWAMY, COOLIE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBUR POLICE THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of and are directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 65/2004 on the file of the 34th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and (Special Court), Central Prison Premises, Bangalore, wherein accused Nos. 1 to 3 therein have been found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 395., IPC read with 397 IPC along with the absconding accused and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for having committed the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 1407/2006 is filed by accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 65/2004 and Criminal Appeal No. 1202/2006 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 65/2004.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 though consistent and cogent, would only prove that there was dacoity in the house of PW.1, wherein he was staying with his father - Cheluvaiah, mother (PW.3) and sister (PW.4) and uncle (PW.2) and three persons trespassed in to their house and caused injury and looted the gold ornaments worn by PWs.3 and 4 and the gold ring of Cheluvaiah. However, the identity of the accused has not been proved. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would show that though they had seen the accused, they were not acquainted with the accused and they did not know the accused prior to the date of the incident. Only on 24.07.2001, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were shown to PWs.1 to 3 as the persons, who committed the dacoity. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been held and therefore, identification of the accused for the first. time in the Court is of no value. Recovery of the gold ingot said to have been sold by accused Nos. 1 to 3 is not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to fee set aside and the Appellants are liable to be acquitted of the offence for which they are convicted by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction arid sentence.