HUSSAIN KABIR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .At the time of hearing IA No. 1/2016 in Cri.A.No.839/2016 and IA No. 2/2016 in Cri.A.No.1709/2016 filed for suspension of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that in view of the memo filed by the learned counsels for the appellants that they are not pressing the appeal so far as the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 394 of I.P.C. and under Section 25A of the Arms Act, but only challenges the conviction and sentence passed under Section 394 of I.P.C., the above said two appeals are taken up together, heard on the merits itself, and disposed off.

(2.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1709/2016 is arrayed as A1, wherein the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 839/2016 is arrayed as A2 originally in Crime No. 59/2010 on the file of the Sringeri Police Station. Subsequently, as A2 was absconding, his case was split up. A Sessions Case No. 86/2012 was registered so far as A1 is concerned and SC No. 3/2013 has been registered against A2 is concerned after securing his presence by the trial court. The above said two accused tried separately in the above said two cases separately. However, both are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 394 of I.P.C. and in addition, A1 was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 25A of the Arms Act. Though there are two judgments rendered so far as A1 and A2 are concerned, the origin of the case is one and the same and the allegations made against both the accused are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature and arising out of the same cause of action. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together so far it relates to judgment of conviction and sentence passed with regard to Section 394 of I.P.C.

(3.) In view of the memos filed by the counsels appearing for the accused, there is no need for this court to refer to the details of the evidence recorded in both the cases and the judgment and the reasonings given in the two judgments with reference to the offences punishable under sections 353, 332 and as well under sections 25-A of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, it goes without saying that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the above said two Sessions Cases deserves to be confirmed so far as the offences as noted above under Section 353, 332 of I.P.C. and Section 25-A of the Indian Arms Act.