THAYAMMA @ RUDRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER faced prosecution in C.C. No.737/1996, on the file of the JMFC, Anekal, for the offences punishable under Ss.454, 380 read with S.34 of IPC, was found guilty. She was convicted and sentenced. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.45/2001 by the learned District Judge, Bangalore Rural District.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 02.09.1996, at about 12.00 noon, petitioner / accused No.1 entered the house of PW-2, situated at Mirza Road, Anekal and allegedly committed theft of gold bangles, necklace, a pair of ear drops and a single strand gold chain. On hearing the sound of opening the Godrej almirah, PW-2 who was washing the clothes in the backyard, came inside and saw accused No.1 standing in the room and questioned as to what she was looking for. 3 It is alleged that the accused No.1 replied, that she had come to meet PW-2 and hurriedly left the place. PW-2 got suspicion about the behaviour of accused No.1, opened cupboard of the almirah and found bangles, necklace, ear drops and a gold chain missing. She immediately went to the house of accused No.1, who did not respond. After PW-2's husband / PW-1 returned from the office, PW-2 informed him about the missing gold ornaments and also told him that it is accused No.1 who had entered the house. It is alleged that they asked accused No.1 to return the gold ornaments and waited for a few days and since accused No.1 did not return the gold articles, PW-2 lodged the complaint on 09.09.1996. Case came to be registered in Crime No.154/1996. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and one Rathnamma / accused No.2. In response to the same, both the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. To prove the case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9, marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs 1 to 6. Accused were examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. However, petitioner subsequently got herself examined as DW-2 and accused No.2 got herself examined as DW-1. After hearing, learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty. Accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss.454 and 380 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence under S.454 IPC and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a further period of 6 months. She was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence under S.380 read with S.34 IPC and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for a further period of months. Accused No.2 was also convicted and separately sentenced.

(3.) ACCUSED No.1 has filed this criminal revision petition assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.