MANJUNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal revision petitions are filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., by accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively, challenging the common judgment of conviction dated 10.6.2010 passed in C.C.Nos.482/2008 and 843/2009, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Huvina Hadagali, convicting the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months and also questioning the confirmation of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.Nos.58/2010 and 59/2010 passed on 7.7.2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court - III at Hospet.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons/revision petitioners herein along with other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the complainant called him near the bus stand of Holalu village and gave an impression that they got 2 1/2 kgs. of gold coins which was found by them while digging the basement of the house for Ashraya Yojana and they intended to sell the same for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution that at the first instance, the accused gave five gold coins which were genuine in nature and the same was subjected to appraisal and it was confirmed that the same are gold coins and thereafter made the complainant to believe that entire gold coins to the tune of 2 kgs. 650 grams are genuine. However, the same were brass quoted with gold and cheated the complainant by collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the case was registered against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended and accused Nos.3 and 4 were absconding. The Trial Court subsequently split up the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 and proceeded against accused Nos.1 and 2. After examining some of the witnesses, accused No.3 was arrested in connection with other case and he was secured through body warrant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 faced the trial in C.C.No.482/2008 and accused No.3 subsequent to his securing, was subjected to trial in C.C.No.843/2009. However, common judgment was pronounced after recording the evidence.