CHANDAPPA Vs. INDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1-9-2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and additional judicial Magistrate first Class, (hereinafter referred to as 'Magistrate') Bhadravathi, in Criminal Case No.3085 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 392 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.P.C.'). However, by the judgment dated 8-3-2011, the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2010, modified the judgment and sentence passed by the Magistrate, and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

(2.) The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of brevity.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, the respondent filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadravati, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 506 and 511 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation and the Police registered the F.I.R. against the accused. After completion of investigation, they filed 'B' Final Report. The complainant challenged the said report before the trial Court and after recording the statement of the complainant and another witness, the learned trial Judge issued process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 392 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked one document. Statement has been recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for which the accused have denied incriminatory evidence appearing against them in the evidence, but they have not entered into any defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge found the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 392 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2010. After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 392 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., but convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced the accused, as stated above.