T.A. BASHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE present petitioner was the accused No. 1 before the Trial Court, in the following circumstances:

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader on the other hand would seek to justify the judgments of the courts below and would contend that the findings of the court below are concurrent findings and therefore, the scope of revision is limited. He would firstly point out that in a case of theft, the very classification of the alleged offence would indicate that there is little possibility of an eye -witness to the incident. In the instant case, there is no case of the prosecution that the theft of the vehicle had been witnessed by any person. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the prosecution would be in a position to establish the manner in which the theft had been committed. The circumstance on the other hand namely, that the vehicle in question was indeed that of the complainant and it did have a registration number and chassis number and that the vehicle which was recovered tallied with the description and the identification that was provided as to the vehicle being stolen, was established. The further circumstance that the vehicle was ultimately traced at Mumbai, is the clinching evidence that would be available against the petitioners. The petitioner and the other accused, according to PWs 9, 10 and 11 who are the police officers attached to Boriville Police Station at Mumbai, were the occupants of the vehicle when it was stopped by them and it is the further conduct of the accused who are said to have exited from the vehicle and tried to escape, that they were apprehended and the further circumstance that on further verification, that the vehicle was carrying a false number plate at that point of time and the Engine number and the Chassis number when checked, the same tallied with the vehicle that was stolen from Holenarasipura and was in relation to the case that was registered. Thus, in the absence of any explanation by the petitioner and other accused as to the manner in which they came to be in possession of the vehicle, the presumption is that the accused had indeed stolen the vehicle and were trying to dispose of the same in Mumbai, as was suspected. Hence, it was not further necessary for the prosecution to establish that the petitioner and the other accused had committed theft in a particular fashion and it was not for the prosecution to also produce witnesses in this regard. The substantial evidence was ample when it had not been dented by the defence in seeking to claim that the petitioner and the other accused were not in any manner connected with the offence of theft. The circumstance that they were indeed found in possession of the vehicle and had no explanation for the same and the evidence of PWs 9, 10 and 11, it has gone without impeachment, necessarily would be the case of the prosecution as found by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and therefore, would contend that there is no warrant for interference by this Court.