Blog

The Karnataka High Court upheld that the prosecution cannot refuse to question the investigating officer if the circumstances warrant it through A single judge bench of Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry in the case of Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur. (CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.155 OF 2012)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current petitioner was charged in the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumakuru, and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Trial Court’s judgement of conviction and order on sentencing. Aggrieved, The accused filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.51/2008 in the Fast Track Court-III in Tumkur. After hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and decision on the sentence given by the Trial Court. It challenges the conviction and sentencing orders issued by both the Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, and the accused/petitioner has preferred the revision petition.

According to the prosecution, the complainant lost his gold chain in June 2006 and then went silent for a while before advancing with the case. After some time, he learned via the newspaper that the police had recovered several stolen items, including a gold chain; as a result, he went to the Police Station and, after identifying his chain, filed a complaint in August 2006.

The complainant claims that after filing the complaint, the police went to the scene and made a scene of offence panchanama. The Police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence listed in Section 380 of the IPC after completing the investigation.

JUDGEMENT:

The Amicus Curiae for the petitioner stated that there has been an excessive delay in filing the complaint, which has not been satisfactorily justified by the complainant. Furthermore, the prosecution has not interrogated the Investigating Officer who is supposed to have performed the investigation in this instance, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The recovery of the alleged stolen articles at the accused’s purported instance has also not been shown due to the Investigating Officer’s non-examination.

The prosecution rejected the plea, claiming that the complainant had adequately explained the delay in filing the complaint in the complaint itself. It was further argued that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer would not, in any way, weaken the prosecution’s case because the recovery at the instance of the accused had already been established by the other significant witnesses examined by the prosecution.

The bench noted that the claimed recovery of the gold chain occurred before the complainant could file his complaint. As a result, the court ruled that it could not be the prosecution’s case that they captured the accused and retrieved the stolen golden chain at his request following the complaint. Furthermore, after hearing the evidence of the panch witnesses, the court concluded that the purported production of the articles seized from the accused’s home had not been proven.

Additionally, it was noted that the pancha witness’ testimony is full of significant inconsistencies within itself, and that of PW-4 and PW-5 also paints a picture that differs from the prosecution’s case. Meanwhile, the trial court and the sessions judge’s court have only accepted the panch witness’ testimony that a seizure panchanama was made at the accused’s request and that followed.

Thus, the revision petition was allowed, and the accused was acquitted.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, and best civil lawyer.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement