STATE BY BYATARAYANAPURA Vs. PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this Revision Petition calling in question the order passed in SC No. 593/2013 on the file of the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in discharging respondent (A-6) therein for the offence punishable under sections 399 and 402 of Penal Code vide order dated 8.12.2015.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent is arrayed as A-6 originally in SC No. 1059/2011. It is also not in dispute that in the said case, A1, A2 and A6 were shown as absconding accused and only A3 to A5 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in SC No. 1059/2011 and in fact those accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 31.1.2012. A Split up charge-sheet has been filed against A1, A2 and A6. However, in the said case also, the State could not secure the presence of A1 and A2. However, A6 was secured and produced before the court. After his appearance, A-6 has filed a petition u/S.227 of Crimial P.C. seeking his discharge on the ground that the other co-accused have already been acquitted of the charges after thorough trial by the trial Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the evidence which has already been led by the prosecution against A3 to A5, are acquitted by the trial Court.

(3.) On perusal of the records, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the prosecution i.e., particularly PWs.1 & 2 in Sessions Case No. 1059/2011 which has ended in acquittal. It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2, who are the independent witnesses to the prosecution. Out of them, PW-2 has turned hostile to the prosecution and therefore, PW-1 was also disbelieved by the trial Court.