RAGHAVENDRA VENKATARAMANA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of conviction in S C No.62/2001 by the District and Sessions Judge, Karwar in convicting the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 394 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code is under challenge. Earlier Accused No.3 approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2786/2010. By the order dated 7.6.2011 he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has not conducted test identification parade and the evidence of PW-1, PW-12, PW-13 & 14 & 15 did not prove the case of the prosecution so far as identification of Accused Nos.3 & 4 is concerned.

(2.) As per case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 & 2 gained entry into the house at 10.30 p.m. and accused Nos.3 & 4 were standing outside waiting in order to give signal to accused Nos.1 & 2 and thereafter accused Nos.1 & 2 assaulted by using knife and made attempt to rob house of PW-1 under threat. PW-12 & 13 are the parents-in-law and PW-14 is husband of PW-1. PW- 15 is the servant standing outside in Hajare. After PW-1 & 14 made noise, the accused Nos.1 & 2 fled away from the place. PW-1 is wife of PW-14 made complaint. The same was registered for the said offence. In the complaint Ex.P1, PW-1 did not refer identification of any person. It is stated in the complaint that "some one gained entry in the house in order to commit offence of robbery and caused injury to PW-12 & 13. The same has been registered for the said offence". If the complaint Ex.P1 is examined carefully, it does not disclose assailants who have committed the offence. Thereafter on 16.11.2000 prosecution has recorded statement of PW-12 to PW-15. PW-14 husband of PW-1 in his statement for the first time states about identification of accused persons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that reasons for which the accused No.3 got acquitted, the same judgment is applicable in case of Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 and they are also entitled to take benefit of acquittal. He also referred the judgment reported in 2007 Crl.L. J 2704 and 1979 Crl.L.J. 919 and submitted that when identification itself is doubtful, conviction is bad.