SHARANU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment having regard to the fact that the appellants are accused of the same offence.

(3.) The case of the prosecution was that the complainant was a businessman engaged in finance business and that on 22.12.2004, he closed his business at 9p.m.and as usual, was proceeding towards his home, which was in Hatgund village on his motor cycle. It transpires that the present appellants, who were the accused before the trial court, had followed the complainant on their motor cycles and when they were one kilometre away from Pattan cross, it transpires that the accused, overtaking the complainant, had blocked the path with their motor cycles and had stopped him. Accused nos.1 and 2 had put the complainant in fear of death and demanded that he give up his cash, gold and other valuables that he was carrying or else they would be forced to kill him. The complainant is said to have tried to escape by maneuvering his motorcycle, but accused nos.1 and 2, got off from their motor cycles and approached him and accused no.2 was said to have fired with a pistol on his back, as a result of which, he had sustained a bullet injury and the accused then proceeded to snatch his gold chain, a bracelet that he was wearing and cash of Rs.5600/- and hurriedly left the place on their motor cycles abandoning the complainant. The injured complainant then started walking towards his village leaving behind his motor cycle, at which point of time, an auto rickshaw is said to have come along and the complainant managed to wave it down and took the auto rickshaw to his house and revealed the incident to his wife. His wife had immediately arranged to shift him to the Government General Hospital, Gulbarga in a van. After having received first aid there, he was referred to Basaveshwara Hospital, wherein the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yadgir Rural Police Station having registered a medico legal case and having heard the complainant, recorded a oral complaint as to the incident and returned to the police station. On the basis of the same, he registered a case in Crime No.241/2004 and handed over further investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police. The Circle Inspector of Police, it transpires, had managed to arrest the accused and at their instance, recovered the gold chain, a country made pistol and after collecting further oral and documentary evidence, filed a charge sheet against all the accused namely, accused 1 to 4. The Court of the Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences, ordered registration of a case against accused nos.1 to 4 while keeping in view that the offences punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and since the presence of accused no.3 could not be secured, the case was ordered to be split up and after compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity), the case was committed to the Sessions Court insofar as accused nos.1,2 and 4 are concerned under Section 209 of the CrPC. On receipt of the file, a case was registered as SC 301/2006 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, who made over the case to the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. After hearing both sides and on going through the charges, the trial court framed charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 109 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act', for brevity). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution then was called upon to adduce evidence. The prosecution, in turn, examined PWs.1 to 15 and marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to P.18 as well as Material Objects MOs.1 to 6. On the basis of the said evidence and having recorded the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the court below has framed the following points for consideration: