State of Karnataka vs Thammannagowda @ Thammanna

Subhash B. Adi

Appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal in CC.No. 204/1994 dated 17th November 2005 on the file of J. M. F. C., Turuvekere.

Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charged sheeted and tried for an offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case of the prosecution was that, on the night, of 15/15.11.1993 in Benkikere village, Turuvekere taluk, the accused trespassed into the house of PW-1 and removed 14 sheep from the shed. PW-1 heard barking of the dogs, he got up and found that she sheep were missing, immediately he went on bike in search of the sheep. Sheep were found near the channel, immediately the villagers came and caught hold of two accused and sheep were seized. Police came and took the sheep to the police station and registered the case.

The Police on investigation filed the charge sheet.

The prosecution in order to prove the case examined PWs-1 to 11, marked Exs. P1 to P5 and produced M.Os.1 to 16. On the defence side, portion of the statement of PW-3 was marked as Ex. D 1.

The trial court acquitted the accused as the evidence of" PWs-1, 2, 3 and 8 is contradicting each other and the prosecution has not proved that the accused had committed trespass into the house of PW-1 and committed theft beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, had acquitted the accused.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Thimme Gowda, learned Counsel for the accused.

PW-1 in his evidence has stated that, the door of the sheep-shed was damaged and at about 4.35 a.m., Police came to the spot and prepared a mahazer and seized the articles, however, the damaged door lock or lock has not been produced. PW-2 state''s that, the villagers had caught the accused and took the sheep from them, and went to the police station in a tractor whereas. PW-3 has stated that the Police came and seized the sheep on the spot but the evidence of PW-8 shows that the car was stopped by putting the tractor across the road and the sheep were found in the ear and were seized. Amongst 14 sheep, there were lambs also but it is not stated by PW-1.

The evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 8 as regard to the place from where the sheep were seized is mutually contradicting. If the version of PW-8 is accepted, then the sheep were found in the car and the information was already there to PW-8, whereas the version of PW-2 is that the villagers took the sheep to the Police Station after seizing whereas PW 3 states that the Police came to the spot. Even the spot mahazar and seizure is not proved by the prosecution.

According to PW-1, he heard the barking of the dogs. Why he did not immediately raise an alarm or why he waited till the sheep were removed from the shed is not explained, it creates serious doubt whether the sheep were removed from she shed of the complainant. When the door was broken up, dogs were barking and PW-1 not responding to the same and thereafter going in search of sheep, it also creates serious doubt as to whether sheep were removed from the shed, in turn, accused''s explanation is that, there was a loan transaction, to avoid the same, complainant has filed a false complaint.

The trial court while appreciating the evidence has found that the evidence led by the prosecution docs not prove the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. In my opinion, even on reconsideration of the entire evidence. I find no error in the judgment of acquittal.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.

Bail bond stands discharged.