Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S Rachaiah, J.
Suresh – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Bajpe Police Station And Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 798 of 2017
Decided On : 04-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. G.C. Sriharsha, Advocate For Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Rahul Rai K., HCGP
IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of recording voluntary statements in the presence of independent witnesses as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400.
Headnote:
Voluntary Statement - Criminal Revision Petition - Indian Penal Code - Sections 457, 380 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the relevance and admissibility of the voluntary statement of the accused leading to recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It highlighted the necessity of recording the voluntary statement in the presence of independent witnesses, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400. The court emphasized that the absence of independent witnesses' presence while recording the voluntary statement rendered the recovery unacceptable and led to the acquittal of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC for theft of mobiles, laptop, and spare parts. The prosecution's case relied on the voluntary statement of the accused leading to recovery. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the voluntary statement was recorded contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the voluntary statement of the accused leading to recovery was recorded without the presence of independent witnesses, contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As a result, the recovery was rendered unacceptable, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Issues: Relevance and admissibility of the voluntary statement leading to recovery, compliance with the guidelines for recording voluntary statements as per the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of independent witnesses' presence while recording the voluntary statement rendered the recovery unacceptable, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The judgments of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and any executed bail bonds were cancelled.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2016 in C.C.No.531/2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mangaluru, D.K., wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), against which the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 05.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.155/2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that in the intervening night of 13/14-02-2012, the accused with an intention to gain wrongfully entered into the shop of CW.1 situated near the petrol bunk, Bajpe by removing roof tiles and committed theft of 21 mobiles, one laptop and other spare parts of the mobiles worth of Rs.1,50,000/- including cash of Rs.53,000/.
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant Mr.Abdul Hafeez on 14.02.2012, the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner in Crime No.45/2012. After conducting the investigation, submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has The prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15 and none of the items got marked. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction and the Appellate Court confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.
6. Heard Sri.G.C.Sriharsha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Courts below recording the conviction are perverse and illegal. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of the accused. The items which were recovered at the instance of the accused have not been produced before the Trial Court. In the absence of production of those documents, it cannot be said that the accused has committed a theft. However, the Courts below failed to take of this aspect and recorded the conviction and concurrently held that the accused is guilty for the offences stated supra which appears to be erroneous and not proper.
9. It is further submitted that the method in which, the voluntary statement of the accused has been recorded is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400. Therefore, the said voluntary statement ought to have been set aside and the alleged recovery effected on the strength of said voluntary statement should have been rendered as ineffective. However, both the Courts have failed to take note of the said aspect and recorded the conviction which is required to be set aside. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) vehemently justified the findings recorded by the Courts below in convicting the accused. The learned HCGP submits that the voluntary statement of the accused which leads to the recovery is relevant and admissible as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
11. It is further submitted that the voluntary statement of the accused led the Investigating Officer to recover several ite
