Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (KALABURAGI BENCH)
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
Mallappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3684 of 2012
Decided On : 09-06-2020
Shivanand V Pattanshetti, Advocate, Gururaj V Hasilakar, Advocate
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to present coherent and credible evidence can lead to the setting aside of a judgment of conviction.
Headnote:
Theft of Electricity - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135(1)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The accused were alleged to have committed theft of electricity by tampering with the electric meter and using a changeover switch to bypass the meter. The Special Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,03,482/- with a default clause for simple imprisonment for three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the conduct of the raid and the preparation of documents, was suspicious and lacked coherence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of the judgment of conviction and the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The issues raised included the conduct of the raid, the production of crucial evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses. The defense argued that the raid was not conducted and that the accused were falsely implicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not coherent and raised reasonable doubt about the conduct of the raid and the guilt of the accused. The failure to produce crucial evidence, such as the changeover switch, and the lack of credibility of the witnesses led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The fine amount deposited by the appellants was ordered to be returned to them.
JUDGMENT
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The above appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 09.10.2012 passed in (K) Special Case No.4/2010 by the Court of Special Judge/II Additional Sessions Judge at Bijapur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows ;-
The PW.2 after receipt of credible information that the accused were committing theft of electricity where the accused were running flourmill and accordingly the PW.2 along with PW.6 and with other two lineman and officials have conducted raid on the flourmill of the accused on 01.12.2009 at 3.00 p.m. by going over to the Nidoni village where the flourmill was situated and inspected and found that the accused No.2 is the wife and accused No.1 is her husband and said flourmill was running with the help of 2 HP electric motor and when this being the fact upon inspection and the search of the said flourmill on 01.12.2009 at 04.15. p.m. and it is found that the accused tampered two phase PVC wire before electric meter by using change over switch for their convenient bypassing the meter. Thereby made the arrangement to use electricity to run the flourmill but stopping the rotation of disk in the meter and thus in this manner it is alleged that the accused have committed theft of electricity which is punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and accordingly the PW.2 had lodged first information statement (FIS) on 01.12.2009 at 10.00 p.m., against the accused and first information report is registered as per Ex.P.7.
It is alleged against the accused that the accused/appellants that the accused/appellants have committed theft of 4832 units of energy worth of Rs.34,494/- and caused loss to the HESCOM. It is also stated that at the time of conducting raid on the date and time above stated the PW.2 has drawn spot panchanama as per Ex.P.5.
After receipt of FIS and registration of first information report the PW.6 had conducted investigation and found that there are materials against the accused to subject them for trial. Hence, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act.
The Special Court after receipt of the charge sheet had proceeded with the trial against the accused by framing charge against the accused under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Accordingly, trial was proceeded with against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution has examined totally seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked documentary evidences as per Exs.P1 to P7 and got marked material objects as M.Os.1 and 2.
After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused have not submitted any written statement and have not lead any defence evidence. It is totally denial of the case of the prosecution by the accused. The accused have simply denied the prosecution case whenever incriminating evidences/circumstances put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Special Court after considering all the evidences on record had delivered the judgment of conviction against the accused finding guilty of them for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,03,482/- with default clause to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months in case the accused fails to pay the fine amount.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as stated above, the accused have preferred the present appeal challenging on various grounds inter alia as below stated
The Special Court has not appreciated the evidences on record in true and correct perspective manner as it is revealed that there was no raid conducted
Even it is the case of the prosecution that change over switch was seized which is stated to
