[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 622 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 645 of 2012
AND CRL.A No. 898 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.622 OF 2012
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.645 OF 2012
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.898 OF 2012
IN CRL.A NO.622/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SHAMIULLA
S/O. KHADIR SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC:MASON
RESIDING AT SEEGEBAGE
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. MARUTHI
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT ASHWATH NAGAR
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court ...APPELLANTS
of Karnataka
(BY SRI P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)
***
-2-
CRL.A No. 622 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 645 of 2012
AND CRL.A No. 898 of 2012
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.105 OF 2010-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NOS.3 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
136 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 379 OF
IPC AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO.645/2012
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA
S/O. GANGADHARA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BAR BENDING WORK
SURAGI THOPU
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. MANJUNATH @ KATHLE MANJA
S/O. SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
CARPENTER, HOSAMANE
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...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 CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 30-4-12 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN, IN SPECIAL
-3-
CRL.A No. 622 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 645 of 2012
AND CRL.A No. 898 of 2012
CASE NO.105/10-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1
AND 6 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 136 OF
INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 379 OF IPC AND
ETC.
IN CRL.A NO.898/2012
BETWEEN:
1. ALTAF AHAMAD
S/O. ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
MASON WORK
HANUMANTHANAGARA
BHADRAVATHI.
2. SANTHOSHA
S/O. CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
AUTO DRIVER
HOSAMANE
BHADRAVATHI.
3. KUMARA
S/O. ELUMALAI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
PAINTING WORK
HANUMANTHANAGARA
BHADRAVATHI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALEBEEDU POLICE
...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, HASSAN IN SPECIAL CASE
-4-
CRL.A No. 622 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 645 of 2012
AND CRL.A No. 898 of 2012
NO.105 OF 2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NOS.4, 5 AND 7 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
136 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND SECTION 379 OF
IPC AND ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 05-12-2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.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 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
mahazars. All the witnesses have supported the case of
the prosecution and hence, no interference is called for by
this Court. Thus, he prayed to dismiss 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
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. The complaint was lodged by PW1-Harish Kumar,
who was working as Junior Engineer, Beluru Branch, KPTCL.
He has stated that on 04-9-2010 at about 1:25 a.m., there
was interruption in the electricity supply in line drawn
between Beluru and Hassan, and on inspection, he found that
- 10 -
180 meters of copper wires was stolen. Hence, he informed
the said fact to his superior Officers and lodged the complaint
as per Ex.P1. The Police visited the spot and drew spot
mahazar as per Ex.P2 in his presence at the scene of
occurrence. He has further stated that, the Police called him
to the Police Station, where he saw Tata Sumo vehicle and in
the said vehicle, the stolen Copper wires, axe-saw frame,
cutting-plier and PVC pipes were kept. PW.1 further states
that he has not seen accused persons at that time. He
identified MOs.1 to 4. He further stated that approximate
cost of copper wires was Rs.24,000/-. He turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination,
nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony.
11. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 would reveals that
they were working as lineman in the KPTCL department. They
further stated that on 04-9-2010, there was theft of electric
copper wires. But, when they went to the said spot along
with PW1, the said wire was not there and they informed the
said fact to the higher Officers. They further stated that, the
- 11 -
Police have not called them to the Police station and they do
not know who are the accused persons and they don't know
about the converting of Copper wire into ingots. Hence, they
have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and in the
cross examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited. The
fact that PW1 to 4 have not stated about seizure of any
articles, identity of accused persons and seizure of copper
ingots in their presence. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to 4 does
not come to the aid of the prosecution. PW.5 Devaraju,
Junior Engineer and PW.6 Sathish, Junior Engineer have
stated about theft of electric copper wires, but they do not
know who has committed theft.
12. PW.7-Mahesha and PW.8-Kantharaju, are the
independent witnesses to the mahazar Ex.P2. They have
stated that on 04-09-2010 the Police drew mahazar in
connection with theft of Wires at Moolenahalli village and
seized Wire, PVC Pipe and though, both the witnesses have
been cross-examined, nothing has been elicited so as to
support the case of the prosecution.
- 12 -
13. PW.9-Mohamad Fasiulla, receiver of stolen
properties has also turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution.
14. PW.10-Khaleel Ahamad and PW.11-Noushad,
are the witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P9 for having
recovered 44 ingots from the shop of PW.9. However, they
have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In the
cross examination, they have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
15. PW.12-Krishna, who is witness to seizure
mahazar Ex.P10, in whose presence, the police seized 14
copper ingots and four copper bundles, turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution, however, in the cross -examination,
he admits that police have seized 14 copper ingots and 4
copper bundles in his presence. PW.12 has not stated that at
the time of seizure of copper ingots and copper bundles, the
accused persons were present in the police station.
- 13 -
16. PW.13 Venkatesha, another seizure mahazar
witness has stated that, the police seized 14 copper ingots in
his presence under Ex-P10 seizure mahazar. However, he has
not stated that the accused persons were present at the time
of seizure of copper ingots.
17. PW.14-Ramachandra, the then P.S.I., of
Halebeedu police station has stated that on 16.09.2010, he
received further investigation of this case from C.W.15
Kempalingaiah, ASI and perused his investigation. He has
further stated that, C.W.15 received complaint from PW.1 on
04.09.2010 and registered the case, drew mahazar as per
Ex-P2. At the time of conducting mahazar, C.W.15 seized one
and half length copper wire, a axle blade without PVC pipe
and recorded statement of PW.5 Devaraju, PW.6 Satish,
PW.2 Rangaiah, PW.3 Mahesh Kumar and PW.4 Jayaramu
respectively. He has further stated that, himself and PW.15
Raghu visited Hagare forest area on 24.09.2010 and found a
Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02-B-9024 in
the said forest area. On inspection of the said vehicle, they
- 14 -
found copper wire bundles and seven persons. Hence, PW.15
brought the vehicle, seized articles and said seven persons to
the police station.
18. In the cross examination, PW.14 admitted that
the distance between Hagare sub-police station and the place
where Tata Sumo vehicle is parked is about one and half
kilometer. He does not know as to whether the Investigating
Officer conducted any mahazar where the Tata Sumo vehicle
was parked. The IO did not conduct any mahazar in his
presence. They did not count the copper bundles near forest
place. It shows that PW.14 has stated about the registration
of case and investigation done by C.W.15. PW.14 though
stated about seizure of copper wire bundles and securing
seven persons in his presence, however, in the cross
examination, he has given a clear go-bye to his earlier
version.
19. PW15, Raghu, The Inspector of Police, Beluru
Circle, has stated that on 24-9-2010, when he was on
patrolling duty, he received credible information and thus, he
- 15 -
along with his staff went to Hagare Reserve Forest and
noticed the accused, who were in Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing
Registration No.KA-02 B-9024, and also noticed 14 bundles
of electric copper wires. Thus, he enquired the accused and
they informed that they committed theft of electric copper
wires near Moolenahalli village and said wires were installed
to the electric towers. Hence, he secured the accused, Tata
Sumo vehicle and came to the Police Station, recorded the
voluntary statements of the accused, and drew Ex.P7-seizure
mahazar and seized 14 bundles of electric copper wires,
weighing 85 kgs 935 grams. He further stated that accused
No.1 gave his voluntary statement stating that soon after
committing theft, they sold the copper wires to PW.10
Khaleel Ahmed. Pursuant to his voluntary statement, they
went to the scrap shop of PW.10 Khaleel Ahmed situated at
Chennagiri, where, accused No.1 showed PW.10 to whom, he
had sold the copper wires and the copper wires in turn were
converted into ingots, thus, he seized the said ingots in the
presence of PW.9 M.D. Fasiulla and PW.11 Naushad under
Ex-P7.
- 16 -
20. PW.16-Nagesh, Constable, Halebeedu Police
Station, PW.17-Somegowda, P.S.I., Halebeedu Police Station
and PW.18-K. Kambegowda, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Beluru, who are the official witnesses, have supported the
case of the prosecution with regard to theft of electric copper
wires near Moolenahalli village, same was converted into
copper ingots, lodging of complaint-Ex.P1, spot mahazar-
Ex.P2, and recording of statements given by the witnesses as
per Exs.P12 to P14.
21. In the instant cases, except, the evidence of
PWs.14 and 15, who are PSI and CPI, other official witnesses
or any independent witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution. In Special Case No.118/2010, the IO seized
117 kgs of electric copper wires, from the same place and
same vehicle and in Spl.CNo.105/2010, the IO seized 85 kgs
electric copper wire in the same place and same vehicle. In
Spl.C.No.118/2010, the IO seized four copper ingot whereas
in Spl.C.No.105/2010, the IO seized 14 copper ingots. There
is no clear evidence in the testimony of PW.14 and 15 as to
- 17 -
the seizure of total electric copper wires and copper ingots.
There is material contradictions in their testimonies as to
seizure of electric copper wires and copper ingots. Their
testimonies are not supported by any independent witnesses.
None of the prosecution witnesses have identified the
accused persons before the Court with their specific names.
Though PW.15 recorded voluntary statement of accused
No.1, however, the prosecution has not marked such
statement in evidence. Further, there was no recovery of
subject matter of theft in the manner stated under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of proof of
recovery in the manner stated above, the trial Court has
wrongly connected the appellants to the crime and convicted
them on uncorroborated testimonies.
22. The trial Court wrongly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record and has not assigned proper
reasons and has convicted the accused for the charged
offences. Hence, the trial Court by convicting the appellants
committed error by convicting the appellants.
- 18 -
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the appeals filed by the accused deserve to be allowed.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal appeals are allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated 30-4-2012 in
Special Case No.105 of 2010 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, at Hassan, against the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences
punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act,
2003, and under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, is hereby set aside.
iii. Appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled
against them.
iv. The appellants are set at liberty, if they are not
required in any other case.
- 19 -
v. The bail bonds, if any, of the appellants shall stand
cancelled.
The Registry is directed to return the trial Court
record with a copy of this judgment, forthwith.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM
