Police find stolen scooter before complaint lodged

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A chain-snatching duo fled from the spot leaving the scooter they used in the crime behind, as the vehicle failed to start. The police found that they were using a stolen scooter for the crime and another case was lodged against them.

The convict approached the High Court against the conviction stating that there was a delay in filing the complaint about the theft of the scooter. But the Court found him to be a habitual offender and upheld the conviction.

It said, considering the circumstances, the delay in filing the complaint about the theft of the scooter was properly explained. One Shekara aka Ravikumara from Bhadravathi approached the HC against the order of conviction passed by a trial court finding him guilty of the offence under Section 379 (snatching) of the IPC. He and another person were sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year each.

The two had stolen a scooter belonging to one KB Mahesh parked near the Bhadravathi KSRTC bus stand sometime between 24 July 2010 and 9 August 2010. Incidentally, the scooter was recovered from a crime scene. One Indira Murthy and her husband were walking on Cart Road near Karumariyamma temple on August 11, 2010 when Shekara and another person waylaid them, threatened her and forcibly snatched her ‘mangalsutra’ chain.

While trying to escape, the scooter used by Shekara and the other accused did not start and they left it behind. The police seized it as evidence in the case. The complaint about the theft of the scooter was filed by Mahesh after it had been recovered by the police. The accused were convicted by the trial court which they challenged in the HC in 2014. The bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty gave its judgment recently.

The advocate for the convict argued that there was a delay in filing a complaint about the theft of the scooter. He also sought leniency and reduction of sentence and extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The government advocate pointed out to the Court that the conviction of the same petitioner in the related crime of Robbery was also upheld by the High Court.

The HC in its judgment said, “It is clear that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed theft of the Bajaj scooter and even recovery of the same was proved. From the perusal of judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court, it is seen the very same scooter was used by the petitioner herein and the other accused for committing the offence under Section 392 IPC in the said case.

Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence for which he was charged.” The HC also said that the delay in filing the complaint about the theft of the scooter did not go against the case.

“The scooter was seized subsequent to the complaint in Crime No.122/2010 (robbery of chain) which was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW-3 (Indira Murthy) and only after seizure of the scooter, PW-1 (Mahesh) had approached the jurisdictional police and lodged a complaint with regard to theft of his scooter. It is under these circumstances, there has been a delay caused in filing the complaint and the said delay is properly explained and the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

Upholding the sentence, the HC said, “The petitioner appears to be a habitual offender and the fact remains that he has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 IPC (robbery) which has been upheld by this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency and he is not entitled to be released on probation.”

The Court dismissed the petition stating, “The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are sound and reasoned and they do not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.”