MIJIBULLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused ? petitioners herein seeking for a direction to set aside the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.105/2010 confirming and modifying the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.1012/2009 dated 06.10.2010. By the said order of the Trial Court, the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The Appellate Court by its order dated 19.08.2011 confirmed the said order of the Trial Court and modified the conviction to the effect that the accused is convicted under Sections 384, 511 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent ? State.

(3.) Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant Jayachandran, a Pawn Broker by avocation was sitting in his shop situated on NST Road, two unknown persons had come to the shop and demanded the complainant to give them Rs.500/- or else that they would harm him. In the process, they had dragged the complainant and tried to grab the amount from him. But however, since the complainant had screamed, neighbouring shop owners at once came to his rescue and caught hold of those two persons. They were then taken to the police station and since the accused had given life threat demanding Rs.500/-, the complainant lodged a complaint. The I.O. registered a case against the accused under Section 384 IPC, conducted the spot mahazar and recorded the statements of witnesses and filed a charge-sheet. The Trial Court then framed charges under Sections 384, 511 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequent to filing charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and got marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P5. The contradictory statements of PW-4 were got marked at Exhibit D1. PW-1 is the author of the complaint which was filed as per Exhibit P1. The spot mahazar Exhibit P2 was laid by the I.O. in the presence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. PWs 4 and 5 who were the eye-witnesses had given statements before the I.O. during the course of examination that these witnesses were also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence counsel, the Trial Court convicted the accused by judgment dated 06.10.2010 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.105/2010, which came to be dismissed by order dated 19.08.2011 thus confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is these judgments which are under challenge in this petition by the petitioners, urging various grounds.