SUMANTH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP.

(2.) THE case of the de facto complainant is that he is the driver -cum -owner of the lorry bearing registration mark No. KA -25/B9619 and that on 29.8.2015 at about 22.30 hours, he left his house in the said lorry and parked it near Matha Durgadevi Dhaba and told one Ishwar, owner of the dhaba, to wake him up on the morning of 30.8.2015 and thereafter he proceeded to go to sleep in the lorry itself. It is stated that at about 00.30 hours, four unknown persons came near his lorry, pulled him out of the lorry and tied him with a rope and when he tried to scream, one of the accused threatened him that if he tried to scream, he would be assaulted and one of the accused covered his mouth with a piece of cloth and two of the accused persons forcibly took out Rs. 5,000/ - from his pocket and thereafter they dragged him to the other side of the road, pushed him into the field, took the key of the lorry and drove away with the lorry. Half an hour thereafter the owner of the dhaba, Mr. Ishwar, came out of the dhaba towards the fields to relieve himself and there he having found the complainant, he removed the rope and cloth. Thereafter the said Ishwar made a telephone call to the PSI of Chittguppa police station. When the Police arrived there, the complainant narrated the entire incident and after recording the complaint, Crime No. 133/2015 was registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 308 of IPC.

(3.) THE petitioner's counsel would further submit that the accused is innocent of the offences and that he has not been identified by the complainant. He would also submit that the petitioner is married and having family to look after. He would submit that the petitioner is not at all involved in the commission of the offence. He would further submit that no recoveries have been made from the petitioner or at the instance of the petitioner and that the recovery of the lorry and the amount is at the instance of A3 only. He would further submit that even as per the investigation the lorry had been abandoned at a short distance away and hence the only thing that is recovered is that the amount of Rs. 5,000/ - and that too at the instance of A3. He would also point out that even as per the investigation the complainant has not suffered any injuries nor does the complaint disclose the possession and use of any dangerous weapons and more importantly he would submit that the petitioner does not have any criminal record or is he a habitual offender.