- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Karnataka v. Nagesh Alias Ramesh
Comprehensive Summary of the Opinion (State v. Respondent — Criminal Appeal arising from Criminal Case No. 699 of 1992)
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the J.M.F.C., Yellapura, which in Criminal Case No. 699 of 1992 had acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 392, Indian Penal Code.
The accused had not engaged counsel at the appellate stage; the Court appointed Sri P.M. Nawaz as amicus curiae to assist. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri A.B. Patil and the amicus curiae represented arguments before the Court, which also perused the trial record.
The prosecution's case (as narrated in the trial record) is that on 29-8-1992 between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. the complainant (P.W.1), a senior teacher, was travelling on a forest road to Kirawatti Mandal Panchayath in connection with election work. The accused approached her, spoke with her, and later threatened to kill her unless she surrendered her gold "bendole" (identified as M.O.1). The complainant handed over the gold bendole, an electronic wrist watch and a purse containing Rs.25/-. The complainant raised an alarm; a person identified as C.W.8/P.W.3 saw the accused running away. The complainant then went to P.W.2 (her landlord), who showed her a pamphlet (exhibit P-2) containing a photograph; she identified the photograph as that of the person who robbed her. She subsequently lodged a complaint (exhibit P-1); police investigated and filed a charge-sheet.
At trial the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 9, produced exhibits P-1 to P-6 and marked material objects M.O.s 1 to 5. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, primarily on the ground that prosecution failed to prove recovery of M.O.1 in pursuance of any voluntary statement of the accused. The appellate Court criticised the Trial Court's treatment of P.W.1's evidence as cursory and insufficiently analyzed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite the prosecution evidence (identification by P.W.1, corroboration by P.W.3, and seizure evidence) that, on proper analysis, establishes the offence under Section 392 IPC.
- Whether the identification evidence of P.W.1 can be relied upon despite the absence of an identification parade.
- Whether contradictions in witness accounts concerning the seizure/apprehension at P.W.6's shop (as between P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8) are material enough to discredit the prosecution case.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint (from the incident between 9:00–10:00 a.m. to complaint at 6:00 p.m. that day) undermines the prosecution case.
- Appropriate sentence to be imposed on conviction, considering submissions for leniency and facts on record (including exhibit P-2 indicating prior involvement in offences).
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution (Appellant / State)
- The prosecution relied on P.W.1's ocular evidence describing the incident in broad daylight, her opportunity to observe the accused over a period (he followed her and spoke to her), and her subsequent identification of the accused from a pamphlet (exhibit P-2).
- It relied further on seizure evidence that M.O.1 was recovered from the shop of P.W.6 when the accused was attempting to sell the articles, with corroboration by P.W.8 and seizure marked as exhibit A-1.
- The prosecution implicitly argued that contradictions noted by the Trial Court (particularly regarding timing of detention) were not of such substance as to nullify the prosecution evidence.
Respondent / Amicus Curiae (Sri P.M. Nawaz)
- Submitted that it is not safe to rely on P.W.1's identification because no identification parade was conducted.
- Argued that there was delay between the incident and the filing of the complaint and that this delay should be scrutinized (the incident occurred between 9:00–10:00 a.m. and the complaint was filed at 6:00 p.m. the same day).
- On sentencing, the amicus curiae submitted the accused was of young age and sought a lenient view on sentence.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate Court undertook a pointed review of the Trial Court's approach and the prosecution evidence. The Court's analysis proceeded through the following steps (as stated in the opinion):
- Critique of Trial Court: The Court found that the J.M.F.C. approached the matter cursorily. The trial judge reproduced P.W.1's testimony but failed to evaluate its evidentiary value or analyze whether it established identification and guilt.
- Evaluation of P.W.1's identification evidence: The Court examined P.W.1's testimony in detail. It emphasized that the incident occurred in broad daylight between 9:00–10:00 a.m., that the accused either walked in front of or followed P.W.1 for some distance (about half a kilometre at one point), that he spoke with her, and that she had repeated opportunities to observe him. The Court concluded these facts furnished P.W.1 with sufficient opportunity to see and observe the accused and to fix his features in her mind.
- Effect of the pamphlet (exhibit P-2): The Court noted P.W.1 went straight to her landlord (P.W.2) after the incident, was shown a pamphlet with a photograph, and identified it as the person who robbed her. P.W.2 corroborated that he showed exhibit P-2 to P.W.1 and that she identified the photograph. The Court treated this as reinforcing P.W.1's identification.
- Objection on absence of identification parade: Addressing the amicus curiae's submission that no identification parade was held, the Court explained the correct legal approach: whether identification evidence without parade is safe depends on facts and circumstances. Given P.W.1's sustained and close observation in daylight and her subsequent identification from exhibit P-2 soon after the incident, the Court found it reasonable to accept her identification without a parade.
- Corroboration by P.W.3 and seizure evidence: P.W.3 (referred as C.W.8 in parts) corroborated that he saw the accused running away after the robbery. The prosecution also relied upon seizure of M.O.1 at P.W.6's shop. P.W.6 stated the accused was selling M.O.1 and other ornaments when the police arrived and seized the articles under exhibit A-1; P.W.8 corroborated P.W.6.
- Contradiction on timing of apprehension: The Trial Court disbelieved P.W.s 6 and 8 because P.W.5 testified that the accused was already detained by a constable when P.W.5 and P.W.7 went to P.W.6's shop, whereas exhibit A-1 and P.W.6 suggested the accused was apprehended when attempting to run away. The appellate Court deemed this contradiction to be limited to the timing of detention (whether before or after the arrival of P.W.s 5 and 7) and not of such gravity as to impugn the entire evidence of P.W.s 6 and 8. The Court concluded that the contradiction was not material enough to discard the prosecution case.
- Delay in filing complaint: The amicus curiae pointed out a delay (incident in morning; complaint filed at 6:00 p.m.). The Court accepted P.W.1's explanation that she had no money (her purse containing Rs.25/- had been taken) and had to wait for her husband to return from Yellapura to go to the police station. The Court found this explanation sufficient and did not consider the delay fatal to the prosecution.
- Conclusion on guilt: Considering P.W.1's credible ocular testimony, corroboration by P.W.3, the post-incident identification via exhibit P-2, and the seizure evidence relating to M.O.1, the Court found that the prosecution had proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the offence squarely fell within Section 392 IPC because P.W.1 was threatened with death while the robbery was committed.
- Sentencing analysis: The amicus sought leniency, citing the accused's youth. The Court observed exhibit P-2 indicated the accused was involved in many offences. Given the gravity—robbery in broad daylight with a threat to cause death—the Court found a two-year rigorous imprisonment term appropriate. The Court also acknowledged the amicus's assistance and fixed a fee of Rs.1,000 for him.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The appeal is allowed; the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 392, I.P.C., is set aside. The respondent-accused is convicted of the said offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years.
Additional orders recorded in the opinion:
- The Court awarded a fee of Rs.1,000/- to Sri P.M. Nawaz (amicus curiae) for his assistance.
Implications: The immediate consequence is reversal of the Trial Court's acquittal and imposition of conviction and sentence on the respondent. The opinion does not elaborate on any broader precedent or doctrinal change; it applies existing evidentiary principles (notably on identification evidence without a parade and assessment of contradictions) to the facts and reverses the acquittal on the basis that the prosecution evidence, properly evaluated, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This summary is based exclusively on the contents of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information not contained therein.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment passed by the J.M.F.C, Yellapura, in Criminal Case No. 699 of 1992 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 392, I.P.C
2. Since the accused had not engaged any Counsel, we appointed Sri P.M Nawaz, a learned member of this Bar, as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this case to argue the appeal on behalf of the respondent-accused. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri A.B Patil and the learned amicus curiae Sri P.M Nawaz fully and perused the records of the case.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-8-1992 between 9-00 a.m and 10-00 a.m the complainant, who was a senior teacher of Domagara school, was going to Kirawatti Mandal Panchayath in the forest road in connection with some election work. Then the accused came and talked to her and asked her as to where she was going. After sometime, he threatened her to give her gold bendole and also threatened to kill her if she did not part with them. The complainant gave her gold bendole, electronic wrist watch and also a purse containing Rs. 25/- to the accused on his demand which was accompanied with the threat to the life of P.W 1 complainant. After the incident, the complainant raised alarm which brought C.W 8 to that place who saw the accused running away from that place. The complainant went to the house of C.W 2 who was her landlord and narrated the incident. She was shown a pamphlet by C.W 2 which was a warning to the public to be aware of the activities of the individual published therein. On seeing the photo in that pamphlet, she identified him as the very person who robbed her ornaments, wrist watch and a purse with Rs. 25/-. Then she lodged a complaint with the police, who registered the case and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.
4. The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 9 and got exhibited exhibits P-1 to 6 and got marked also M.Os 1 to 5. The Trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove recovery of M.O 1 in pursuance of the voluntary statement of the accused. Though P.W 1 has been examined as a victim and eye-witness, the Trial Court has not at all discussed the evidence of P.W 1. What the Trial Court has done is that it has only narrated the incident. But, it has not discussed the evidentiary value of the evidence of P.W 1 at all. We are sorry to note that the J.M.F.C who acquitted the accused, has dealt with the case in a very cursory manner without giving serious thought to the evidence of the prosecution placed before him. He has only reproduced the evidence of P.W 1, but he has not at all considered it.
5. P.W 1, in her evidence, has stated that on 29-8-1992 she was proceeding to Kirawatti Mandal Panchayath for preparing electoral list for the Mandal Panchayath election and she was going on the forest road, that then the accused came and proceeded in front of her and asked her the way to go to Kolikeri and she proceeded further ½ k.m, that she again found someone following her and the accused came near her and asked her as to where she was going and she told him and she also asked him as to where he was going, that he told her that he was going to Kolikeri and immediately he threatened her to give her gold bendole and if she did not give the ornaments, he would assault her and also kill her, and that she gave her ornaments which she identified as M.O 1. She has further deposed that the accused took her purse containing Rs. 25/- and also an electronic wrist watch. Her evidence further discloses that she raised alarm and C.W 8 came there and he did not understand Kannada and he was not able to make out as to what was the meaning of her cries . She has further deposed that she went to the house of P.W 2-Vinod Hegde who was her landlord and he showed her a pamphlet containing the photo of the accused and she identified the said photo as that of the accused, that thereafter, after informing her husband, she gave a complaint to the police and that it is marked as exhibit P-1. As pointed out by us above, the learned Judge has not at all considered this evidence, though he has reproduced it. It is significant to note that the incident has taken place between 9-00 and 10-00 a.m in the broad daylight. P.W 1 had full opportunity to see the accused in the broad daylight. The incident was not over within minutes as it would be in a case of snatching of gold chain from the neck of a lady. The evidence of P.W 1 goes to show that the accused followed her for some time either by proceeding in front of her or by walking behind her. P.W 1 has also stated that he talked with her. In view of the fact that the accused was walking behind her and proceeding in front of her and also talked with P.W 1 and it was broad daylight, P.W 1 had full opportunity to observe the features of the accused. Her evidence further discloses that after the accused went away with the robbed articles, she raised cries , and P.W 3 came there. Even P.W 3 fully corroborates the evidence of P.W 1 when he says that he had seen the accused running away after committing the robbery of ornaments of P.W 1. P.W 1's evidence is sufficient to fix up the identity of the accused as the very person who robbed her on that day. Another reason for the identification of the accused being clearly fixed up in the mind of P.W 1 is that, after the accused committed robbery, she went to her landlord P.W 2 and P.W 2 showed her a pamphlet, exhibit P-2, containing the photo of the accused. On showing the photo P.W 1 identified him as the very person who robbed her. In view of these facts and circumstances which are disclosed from the evidence of P.W 1, there was no difficulty for P.W 1 to identify the accused at the time of the trial as the very person who robbed her on that day. Regarding the showing of exhibit P-2 to P.W 1, P.W 2 has corroborated it. P.W 2 is a panchayathdar to the spot mahazar and he has also stated in his evidence that he showed exhibit P-2 to P.W 1 and P.W 1 had identified the said photo as the photo of the person who robbed her.
6. The learned amicus curiae submitted that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W 1 as it has not been tested by holding of identification parade in this case. Whether the evidence of a witness identifying a culprit as the very person who committed the offence can be accepted without holding the identification parade or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If there are circumstances which go to prove that the witness had sufficient opportunity to see the culprit and also opportunity to observe him for sometime and also talk with him, then the evidence of such witness can be accepted even without holding of identification parade. As observed by us earlier, P.W 1 saw the accused in broad daylight. The accused was with her for sometime as he was following her or walking in front of her and also he talked with her. Therefore, P.W 1 has sufficient opportunity to see the accused. The features of the accused were well fixed in the mind of P.W 1 not only on account of her close observation of the accused at that hour and also on account of her seeing the photo of the accused on a pamphlet given to her by P.W 2 soon after the incident. Such evidence of P.W 1 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there is no identification parade held to identify the accused by P.W 1. P.W 3 also corroborates her to the extent that P.W 1 was robbed on that day and he saw the accused running away.
7. The prosecution has also relied on the seizure of M.O 1 from the shop of P.W 6. P.W 6 has deposed that when the accused was selling M.O 1 and other ornaments, police came and caught hold of him and seized M.O 1 along with other ornaments under exhibit A-1. P.W 8 fully corroborates P.W 6. The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws 6 and 8 on the ground that P.W 5 contradicts them. P.W 5 has stated in his evidence that when he and P.W 7 went to the shop of P.W 6, the accused was already detained there by a police constable. But, in exhibit A-1, there are averments to the effect that the accused was apprehended when he attempted to run away from the shop of P.W 6. The statement made by P.W 6 that when they went there, the accused was already detained by a constable is not such one so as to discredit the entire evidence of P.Ws 6 and 8. So far as the apprehension of the accused at the shop of P.W 6 when he was attempting to sell the articles including M.O 1 is concerned, there is no contradiction as such between the evidence of P.Ws 5, 6 and 8. The contradiction, if at all, is on the point as to when the accused was detained i.e, when before the coming of P.Ws 5 and 8 or after. We do not think that this is such a major contradiction so as to discard the entire evidence of the prosecution. M.O 1 is identified by P.W 1.
8. The learned amicus curiae submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint. The incident had taken place on 29-8-1992 between 9-00 and 10-00 a.m But, the complaint is filed on the same day at 6-00 p.m This has been explained by P.W 1 in her evidence. She has stated that her husband was working as a teacher at Yellapura and she was not in a position to go to Yellapura to inform her husband about the incident as the accused had taken her purse also containing Rs. 25/- and she had to wait for the arrival of her husband from Yellapura to go to the Police Station and file the complaint. In our opinion, the delay is properly explained by P.W 1. The prosecution case cannot be discarded on that count also.
9. On assessing the merits of the prosecution evidence in this case, we find that the learned J.M.F.C committed a grave error in not assessing the evidence of the prosecution properly and acquitting the accused of such a heinous offence by taking a very casual approach to the evidence of the prosecution. Such an attitude on the part of the J.M.F.C has to be deprecated.
10. It is proved by the evidence of P.W 1 that the accused gave threat to P.W 1 to cause her death while committing the robbery of her ornaments. Therefore, the offence squarely falls within the purview of Section 392, I.P.C
11. We have heard the learned amicus curiae on the sentence to be awarded to the respondent-accused. Sri P.M Nawaz, learned amicus curiae, submitted that the accused is a person of young age and a lenient view of the matter may be taken. The offence alleged against the respondent-accused is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and also liable to a fine. From exhibit P-2, it appears that the accused is a man involved in many offences. The way he has committed the robbery is disclosed from the evidence of P.W 1. He put a lady in fear of death in broad daylight and committed the robbery of her gold ornaments. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it will meet the ends of justice if the respondent-accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two year. Before parting with this case, we place on record our appreciation of the work done by Sri P.M Nawaz as amicus curiae in this case. He argued the case very ably and took us through the evidence and also pointed out the points of law in favour of the accused. But the arguments of the amicus curiae could not be accepted in view of the acceptable evidence on record which proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Sri Nawaz is entitled to a fee of Rs. 1,000/- for his work done in this case.
12. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 392, I.P.C is set aside and the respondent-accused is convicted for the said offence and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years?
Alert