Sri. Govinda vs State By Kr Pet Town Police, Mandya
2024 Latest Caselaw 11 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Govinda vs State By Kr Pet Town Police, Mandya on 2 January, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:144
                                                     CRL.RP No. 733 of 2014




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 733 OF 2014


                BETWEEN:

                1.    SRI. GOVINDA
                      S/O KRISHNAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                      R/AT HANUMAPURA VILLAGE,
                      MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
                      TURUVEKERE TALUK,
                      TUMKUR DISTRICT-562 102
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR.P.DAROJI,ADVOCATE)

                AND:


Digitally
                1.    STATE BY KR PET TOWN POLICE, MANDYA
signed by             REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SANDHYA S
Location:             HIGH COURT BUILDING,
High Court of
Karnataka             BANGALORE-560 001
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

                     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED U/S. 397
                CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
                THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
                THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
                CRL.A.NO.78/13 DATED:7.5.14 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.DIST.
                AND S.J., MANDYA SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA AND SET
                ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
                PASSED IN C.C.NO.646/2007 DATED:10.4.13 ON THE FILE OF
                              -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:144
                                      CRL.RP No. 733 of 2014




THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.PET. FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 324, 326, 504 OF IPC AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
REVISION PETITION.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

The revision petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred

this petition against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 10.04.2013 passed in C.C.No.646/2007

by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet (hereinafter

referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) which is confirmed by

the judgment dated 07.05.2014 passed in Crl.Appeal

No.78/2013 by the Court of the III Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna)

(hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this

appeal are referred to as per their status and rank before

the Trial Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:144

3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that

on 30.08.2007 at 7 a.m., within the jurisdiction of K.R.Pet

Town Police Station at Guddenahally village in

complainant's land Survey.No.34 the present accused

Govinda, son of Krishnappa, along with other accused

Lakshmana has committed theft of electricity cable wire

drawn to bore well of the complainant worth Rs.1,000/-.

Therefore, charge sheet is filed against present accused

and another for the offence punishable under Section 379

of Indian Penal Code.

4. After filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was

taken against the accused No.1 and the case was

registered in C.C.No.646/2007. In pursuance of the

summons, the accused No.1 has appeared before the

Court and enlarged on bail. Charge framed and read over

and explained to the Accused. Having understood the

same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

NC: 2024:KHC:144

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, 6

witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6 and 4 documents

were got marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and one burnt cable wire

was got marked as M.O.1. On closure of prosecution side

evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded against accused No.1. The accused has denied

the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not

chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

6. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the

Trial Court has passed sentence of one year simple

imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of

payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two months.

7. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction

and order of sentence, the accused No.1-Govinda, S/o.

Krishnappa has preferred an appeal before the appellate

Court in Crl.Appeal No.78/2013 and the same came to be

dismissed on 07.05.2014.

NC: 2024:KHC:144

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the

appellate Court and also the Trial Court, the revision

petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred this revision

petition.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary, arbitrary

and is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Both the

Courts below have not properly appreciated the defence

evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.

Further, it is stated that the prosecution has not placed

any material to show as to the installation of pump set and

it has failed to produce RTC extract pertaining to land in

Survey No.34 where the alleged cable wire was installed.

10. PWs.1 and 3 have not supported the case of

prosecution and that there is no cogent and corroborative

evidence to prove the guilt of the accused No.1. Further,

he submits that Ex.P4 - First Information Report reveals

that the date and time of dispatch of First Information

NC: 2024:KHC:144

Report to the Court on 30.08.2007 at 9.45 hrs whereas in

Ex.P1 - spot mahazar that the police have conducted

panchanama between 9.45 am to 10.15 am. The distance

between the police station to the place of crime is 4 kms

as shown in 5(a) of First Information Report. The learned

Magistrate has endorsed on Ex.P4 - First Information

Report that he has received the same on 30.08.2007 at

5.00 P.M. which would create doubt about the incident.

On all these grounds, he sought to allow this revision

petition.

11. As against this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader submits that the Trial Court has

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law

and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence and accordingly, he sought to dismiss the

revision petition.

NC: 2024:KHC:144

12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and

on perusal of entire records, the following points would

arise for my consideration:

i. Whether the revision petitioner has made out the grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Trial Court?

ii. What order?

13. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the affirmative

Point No.2: as per final order

Regarding point No.1:

14. I have carefully examined the material placed

before the Court.

It is the case of prosecution that the revision

petitioner and accused No.2 have committed a theft of

M.O.1-burnt cable wire which was erected in the land

bearing Survey No.34 of Guddenahally village of PW.2-

NC: 2024:KHC:144

Nanjundegowda, S/o. Ningegowda. The investigating

officer has not produced the document to show that the

said land belongs to PW.2-Nanjundegowda and also

document as to the installation of pump set and supply of

electricity.

15. PW.1- Rajegowda has not supported the case of

prosecution. It is the further case of prosecution that the

investigating officer has seized the burnt cable wire in the

presence of panchas and seizure mahazar was conducted

which is marked as Ex.P3.

16. The mahazar witness PW.3-Shantharaju has not

supported the case of prosecution.

17. PW.5-C.S.Manchegowda has deposed his

evidence as to the mahazar conducted by police as per

Ex.P3 but during the course of cross examination, he has

stated that he did not know the contents of Ex.P3 and he

has not identified the accused and put his signature in the

police station.

NC: 2024:KHC:144

18. PW.6-Gopal, Police Inspector has deposed as to

his investigation and he has not whispered anything on

what basis he has recovered M.O.1 at the instance of

accused and even the investigating officer has not stated

as to the recovery of M.O.1.

19. PW.2-Nanjundegowda has deposed as to the

theft of cable wire and also contents of complaint at Ex.P2

but he has not deposed as against the present revision

petitioner.

20. On perusal of Ex.P2- complaint which reveals

that PW.2-Nanjundegowda has lodged complaint on

30.08.2007 and it was received by the police on the same

day at 9.00 a.m. The date and time of dispatch of First

Information Report to the Court is shown as 9.45 a.m. but

the learned Magistrate has endorsed on Ex.P4 in which it

reveals that the learned Magistrate has received the First

Information Report on 30.08.2007 at 5.00 p.m. The delay

in submitting the First Information Report has not been

explained by the investigating officer.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:144

21. Ex.P1-spot mahazar reveals that the

panchanama conducted between 9.45 a.m. to 10.15 a.m.

The column No.5(a) of the First Information Report reveals

that the distance between the police station and place of

crime is 4 kms.

22. PW.6-Gopal, Police Inspector has received the

First Information Report and he has also put his signature

on Ex.P2 - complaint. Ex.P1 - panchanama was conducted

by this PW.6 reveals that he has conducted the mahazar

between 9.45 a.m. to 10.15 a.m. Therefore, it is crystal

clear that the panchanama has not conducted on spot and

it is prepared in the police station. The investigating

officer has not visited the spot which is reflected by the

mahazar at Ex.P1 and he has not collected the material

evidence i.e., RTC extract, documents pertaining to

installation of pump set and obtaining electricity power

from the concerned Department.

23. On careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record,

it is crystal clear that the investigating officer has not

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:144

properly investigated the case and submitted the charge

sheet against the present revision petitioner which is not

sustainable under law. Both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law

and facts. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative.

Regarding point No.2:

24. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.

ii. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2013 passed in C.C.No.646/2007 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet which is confirmed by the judgment dated 07.05.2014 passed in Crl.Appeal No.78/2013 by the Court of the III Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna) are set aside.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:144

iii. Revision petitioner/accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

iv. If any fine amount is paid by the accused, the same shall be paid to him.

v. Registry is directed to send intimation through E-mail to the Jail Superintendent, District Prison, Mandya to release the accused if he has not involved in any other case.

vi. Registry is also directed to send copy of this order along with records to the concerned Courts.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSD