MOHAN @ MOUNESHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.76/2009 dated 03.12.2013 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.3514/2007 dated 27/29.06.2009 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2007 at around 05.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding at M.C.C. "B" Block, Kuvempunagar at the back side road of Sri B.S.Channabasappa's House, the accused who was waiting along with his Suzuki Motor Bike bearing Regn.No.KA-17 S-6005, threw chilly powder on the eyes of the complainant and snatched one golden Mangalya chain weighing 50.5 grams of Goa cutting design and another chain of coffee seeds weighing 40 grams from her neck. Subsequent to snatching of the aforesaid gold items, accused went away in his motor bike.

(3.) Thereafter, on filing of complaint by the complainant, Crime No.50/2007 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Subsequent to recording FIR, the IO investigated the case and laid charge sheet in C.C.No.3514/2007 against the accused person. Charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPOC, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequent to framing of charge, the prosecution in order to substantiate the guilt of the accused, got examined as many as 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution the incriminating statement as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused declined the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced so far. Subsequently, he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing the Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the entire material evidence available on record, rendered the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court was challenged before the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.76/2009. The first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.12.2013 confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court dismissing the appeal. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/accused by urging various grounds.