Santhosha vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 11648 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Santhosha vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2025

                                                    -1-
                                                            CRL.A No. 623 of 2012
                                                    C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and
                                                       AND CRL.A No. 899 of 2012



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                                 BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.623 OF 2012

                                            CONNECTED WITH

                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.644 OF 2012

                                                    AND

                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.899 OF 2012

                       IN CRL.A NO.623/2012

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   SHAMIULLA
                            S/O. KHADIR SAB
                            AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                            OCC:MASON
                            RESIDING AT SEEGEBAGE
                            BHADRAVATHI
                            SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

                       2.   MARUTHI
Digitally signed by         S/O. THIMMEGOWDA
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA                  AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Location: High Court
of Karnataka                OCC:AGRICULTURIST
                            RESIDING AT ASHWATH NAGAR
                            BHADRAVATHI
                            SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                            (BY SRI P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
                                SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)


                       AND:

                            THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION
                             -2-
                                     CRL.A No. 623 of 2012
                             C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and
                                AND CRL.A No. 899 of 2012



                                         ...RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                         ***

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 30-4-2012 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.27 OF 2011-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NOS.4 AND 5 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
136 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 379 OF
IPC AND ETC.

IN CRL.A NO.644/2012

BETWEEN:

    MANJUNATH @ KATHLE MANJA
    S/O. SHANKARAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
    CARPENTER, HOSAMANE
    BHADRAVATHI
    SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

                                           ...APPELLANT

    (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION
                                         ...RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                         ***

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 30-4-2012 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.27 OF 2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
                              -3-
                                      CRL.A No. 623 of 2012
                              C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and
                                 AND CRL.A No. 899 of 2012



FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 136 OF
INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 379 OF IPC AND
ETC.

IN CRL.A NO.899/2012

BETWEEN:

1.   SANTHOSHA
     S/O. CHANNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     AUTO DRIVER
     HOSAMANE
     BHADRAVATHI.

2.   ALTAF AHAMAD
     S/O. ABDUL KAREEM
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     MASON WORK
     HANUMANTHANAGARA
     BHADRAVATHI.
                                           ...APPELLANTS

     (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION
                                          ...RESPONDENT

     (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                           ***

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30-4-2012 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN
IN SPECIAL CASE NO.27 OF 2011 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 136 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY
ACT, 2003 AND SEC.379 OF IPC AND ETC.
                                 -4-
                                        CRL.A No. 623 of 2012
                                C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and
                                   AND CRL.A No. 899 of 2012



     THESE   CRIMINAL   APPEALS       HAVING   BEEN    HEARD     AND
RESERVED ON 5-12-2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                        CAV JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2012 is filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.4 and 5, Criminal Appeal No.644

of 2012 is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 and

Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2012 is filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 praying to set-aside the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

30.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hassan, in Special Case No.27 of 2011, whereby they were

held guilty for the offences under Section 136 of the

Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and were sentenced to

undergo Simple imprisonment for two years each for the

aforesaid offences.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on

18.08.2010 at about 12.00 midnight, there was

C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and

interruption in supply of electricity at Beluru 66 K.V. Line.

Hence, the complainant along with his staff went to

inspect the line and found that, within the limits of

Kuppalli and Janivera limits, some miscreants had cut and

stolen the copper wires, which was drawn between Tower

658 to 663 weighing 213kgs 780grams and the total value

of the wires was Rs.41,478/-. Hence, on 21-8-2010 at

10:30 a.m., he lodged a complaint. Based on the

complaint, the case has been registered, the matter was

investigated 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 ten witnesses as

PW1 to PW10, got marked eleven documents as per

C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and

Exs.P1 to P11 and thirty one material objects as per MOs.1

to 31. 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 the 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 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

C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and

mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 8 to 10,

which is full of material omissions, contradictions, and

suffers from infirmities. The trial Court also relied upon the

evidence of PW1, Investigating Officer, and voluntary

statement of accused No.1. In fact, such voluntary

statement appears to be implanted for the purpose of this

case. The evidence of PW3 about the alleged recovery of

the material objects along with Tata Sumo vehicle is

doubtful, as no mahazar was drawn at that time, which

goes to the very root of the case. 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

C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and

that the trial Court convicted the accused based on the

material evidence available before it. The recovery of

material objects at the instance of the accused is proved

by examining the independent witnesses to seizure

mahazar. Except PW 4 to 7, all other witnesses have

supported the case of the prosecution and hence, no

interference is called for by this Court. Thus, he prayed

for dismissal of the appeals.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for both parties, the point that arises for the

Court's consideration is:-

"Whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court requires interference at the hands of this Court?"

8. Firstly, to connect the accused to the theft of

copper wires, the prosecution must establish specific

legal elements of the offence and provide concrete

evidence linking the individual to the crime. The primary

burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt

C/W CRL.A No. 644 of 2012 and

beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, the prosecution must

prove that the accused had willful and dishonest intention in

committing theft of electric wires. The act of committing theft

of electric wires for personal gain is often considered prima-

facie evidence of this intention. Thirdly, the prosecution

must prove the physical act of the accused that he performed

the physical act of cutting, removing, taking away,

transferring, possessing the electric lines or materials without

the owner's consent. Fourthly, the act must have been done

without the authorisation or consent of the licensee or owner

of the property. Fifthly, the property in question must be

identified as the specific electric lines or materials that were

stolen. Sixthly, if the accused cannot provide a reasonable or

legal explanation for possessing the materials, his conduct

can fortify the allegations of theft.

9. In the light of the above propositions, it is just and

necessary to analyse the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses.

- 10 -