Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Sri Ravi S/o Jayanna - Appellant
Versus
State By Rural Police Chikamagalur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2011
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Manjunatha B, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri S Viswa Murthy, HCGP
Voluntary statements are not admissible as evidence except for recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
The judgment refers to the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act), specifically Section 136, which deals with the offence of tampering with electric lines or meters. The court also refers to Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offence of theft. The court analyzed the provisions of these acts in relation to the facts of the case and their application to the appellant's alleged involvement in the theft of copper wire.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused No. 3, challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him and accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 379 of IPC. The case involved the theft of copper wire belonging to MESCOM. The trial court convicted the appellant and the other accused based on the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant argued that there was no connecting material to prove his involvement in the theft. The High Court held that the voluntary statements were not admissible as evidence, and there was no legal evidence connecting the appellant to the theft. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and material objects. It found that there was no legal evidence connecting the appellant to the theft, and the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not admissible as evidence. The court concluded that the trial court had erroneously convicted the appellant based on insufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that voluntary statements are not admissible as evidence except for recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without proper legal evidence, the appellant could not be convicted of the offences. The court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant - accused No. 3 was acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Any fine amount paid by the appellant was ordered to be refunded to him.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by appellant -accused No. 3 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Spl.C. No. 20/2010 by the Additional District and Special Judge, Chickmagaluru dated 04.10.2011 convicting the appellant -accused No. 3 and also accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Section 379 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-each for the offence under Section 136 of the Act with a default sentence. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 379 of IPC as it is a similar offence to that of offence under Section 136 of the Act.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that, on 22.05.2007 at night hours near Mattavara kere in Chikkamagaluru accused persons committed theft of copper wire measuring 200 meters and weighing about 40 KGs 50 GMs. worth Rs.15,000/-belonging to MESCOM installed in electric poles and alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of the Act. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of the Act. Trial was held against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and 7 and the case against accused No.4 was split up.
3. In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
4. After hearing arguments on both sides the trial Court framed points for consideration and convicted the appellant -accused No.3 and also accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of the Act. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for appellant -accused No.3 and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent -State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant -accused No.3 argued that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in coming to the conclusion that appellant -accused No.3 has committed the offences. There are no connecting material to the alleged theft dated 22.05.2007 against this appellant -accused No.3. There is no recovery of any material objects at the instance of the appellant -accused No.3. Recovery of M.O.2 -40 KGs of copper ingots is at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 3 from the shop of C.W.7 under mahazar -Ex.P.10. The trial Court based on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 which are at Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 has come to the conclusion that appellant -accused No.3 is involved in commission of theft of 200 meters of copper wire on 22.05.2007. The said Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 are not admissible in evidence except for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record properly has erroneously convicted this appellant accused No.3. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and acquit appellant -accused No.3.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the appellant -accused No.3 is a habitual offender along with other accused has committed theft of copper electric wire in two to three cases. He supported the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in convicting appellant -accused No.3. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. On the grounds made out and considering the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the parties the following point arises for my consideration.
Whether the trial Court erred in convicting appellant -accused No.3 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003?
9. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
Charge leveled against appellant -accused No.3 and other accused is that on 22.05.2007
