- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentencing each of 10 years imprisonment.
(3.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: On 24.6.2001 at 9.00 p.m. on Mulbagal-Punganoor road PWs 2 and 3 were going on a Bajaj Scooter. When they were near 'Kirumani Mitta' of 'Buddadoru village", accused persons 2 to 5 intercepted PWs 2 and 3, and robbed the gold chain, golden ear drops, thali and cash of Rs.400/- by threatening with knife. The accused tied the legs and hands of PW-2 and PW-3 and threatened them not to escape and get out from the place for about ten minutes after their departure. The victims went to Punganoor Police Station and later on lodged First Information Report with Nangali Police (Kolar Dist.) on 25.6.2001. The Traffic Police while checking found A-2, A-3 and A-4 were going on the scooter (M.O.6) they had robbed from PW-2, the deadly weapons like knives, pistol, iron rod, etc. were hidden in the scooter. On interrogation, the accused persons admitted the commission of offence in question. A-5 and A-8 were arrested on the information given by A-2 to A-4. At the instance of A-2, the gold jewellery (M.Os.2 and 3) are recovered from PW-6-Pawn broker. The Bajaj Scooter (M.O.6) was seized from A-2, A-3 and A-4. PW-13 with whom the ear- studs and the chain were pledged by A-2, testified to the said fact. PWs 2 and 3 identified A-2 to A-5 as the persons who robbed them. Prosecution claimed that the identification of accused persons by PWs 2 and 3 coupled with the recovery of jewellery at the instance of A-2 and seizure of scooter from A- 2, A-3 and A-4 clinchingly established the guilt of A-2 to A-5. The investigating agency submitted charge sheet for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The case was split up against A-1, A-6 and A-7 as they were absconding. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar referred to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the recovery of the scooter, the recovery of stolen articles and identification thereon to conclude that accused persons are guilty and accordingly A-2 to A-5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. Accused 7 and 8 were acquitted as the evidence was not sufficient to find them guilty. Considering the gravity of the offence, custodial sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each was imposed. In appeal, the High Court found that the offence committed was covered under Section 392 IPC, but considering the gravity of the offence upheld the sentence.;