Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
Shamiulla, S/o. Khadir Sab – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, By Halebeedu Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.622 Of 2012 Connected With Criminal Appeal No.645 Of 2012 And Criminal Appeal No.898 Of 2012
Decided On : 19-12-2025
For the Appellant :Sri P.B. Umesh, Advocate For Sri R.B. Deshpande, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Divakar Maddur, H.C.G.P.
The conviction of the appellants was set aside due to insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for theft under the Electricity Act and IPC.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 136 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 379 - Accused were convicted for theft of copper wires and sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment; appeals were filed arguing improper conviction due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 6, 21)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, proving willful intention and physical act of theft without consent. (Paras 8)
(C) Evidence evaluation - Majority of witnesses turned hostile, and corroboration for theft was inadequate to support conviction. (Paras 21)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged after a complaint regarding stolen copper wires worth Rs.24,000; the trial court convicted them based on testimonies despite multiple witnesses turning hostile and the lack of conclusive evidence.
Findings of Court:
The appeals were allowed; the conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Issues: The main issue was whether there existed adequate legal evidence to maintain the conviction of the appellants for the alleged theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the trial court improperly convicted the appellants based on uncorroborated testimonies; credible evidence was necessary to affirm allegations of theft.
Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeals filed against conviction for theft (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions of the appellant and respondent (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of testimonies and evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. error in trial court's judgment (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
1. Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2012 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3, Criminal Appeal No.645 of 2012 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 6, and Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2012 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Hassan, in Special Case No.105 of 2010, whereby the accused are held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'Electricity Act') and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for the aforesaid offences.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 04-9-2010 at about 1.25 a.m., there was interruption in supply of electricity on Hassan-Beluru K.V. Line. Hence, the complainant along with his staff went to inspect the line and found that, within the limits of Moolenahalli, some miscreants had cut and stolen the copper wires, and the total value of the wires was Rs.24,000/-. Hence, on 04-09- 2010 at 1:25 a.m., PW1 lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the case has been registered and the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet against the accused.
3. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the trial Court complied with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') by supplying prosecution papers and framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined in all eighteen witnesses as PW1 to PW18, got marked fourteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P14 and five material objects as per MOs.1 to 5. Assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that, the accused committed the offences charged against them and thus, convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 136 of Electricity Act and under Section 379 of IPC . Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred these appeals.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. Sri P.B. Umesh, learned counsel and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, have contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case. The prosecution is guilty of material suppression of evidence and has not come forward with true origin of the incident. There is delay in filing the complaint and the delay has been conveniently used by the prosecution to foist a false case against the accused. The trial Court has mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, which is full of material omissions, contradictions, and suffers from infirmities. The trial Court also relied upon the evidence of PW7 and PW8 and contents as per Ex.P2-spot mahazar wherein PWs.9 to 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus recovery of articles in the case is not proved. Further, the Investigating Officer has not followed due procedures while seizing the articles and therefore, the recovery itself is doubtful. The trial Court should have given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. The trial Court ought to have extended the benefit available under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the accused. On all these grounds, they prayed to allow the appeals.
6. Per contra, Sri Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, submits that the trial Court convicted the acc
