Karnataka High Court
Sri Sab Jan vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
CRL.RP No. 1474 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI SAB JAN S/O SRI MIYASAB
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER
R/O BEHIND JALLI MACHINE ROAD
GURUPURA SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAILWAY POLICE FORCE ARSIKERE REP BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., BY THE
NARAYANA
UMA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.07.2016 PASSED BY THE II
KARNATAKA
ADDL. S.J., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.81/2014
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2014 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR IN C.C.NO.581/2012.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
CRL.RP No. 1474 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 10.06.2014 in C.C.No.581/2012 on the file of
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur and its confirmation
judgment and order dated 14.07.2016 in Crl.A.No.81/2014 on
the file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru
wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 96(b) of Karnataka Police Act. (for
brevity, 'K.P. Act').
2. The petitioner is the accused and the appellant
before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
respectively. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the
parties henceforth, will be considered as per their ranks before
the Trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on
24.04.2012 at about 8.30 p.m., when the railway officials were
on duty, a person was used to board and alight Shivamogga
Express Train from one compartment to another compartment
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
and touching the luggage of the passengers. Suspecting his
conduct, the complainant -police asked him to show his ticket,
he has not produced ticket and has not given any satisfactory
explanation for his conduct. However, he informed them that
he was the resident of Shivamogga. Immediately, he was taken
to custody and the complainant-police registered a case in
Cr.No.19/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 96(b)
of the K.P. Act. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet
was submitted against the petitioner.
4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined three
witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked two documents as
Exs.P.1 and P2. On the other hand, the defence has not
chosen to lead any evidence. The Trial Court after appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the
accused/petitioner for the offence stated supra. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after
having heard the accused, confirmed the judgment of
conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking
to set aside the concurrent findings.
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
5. Heard Sri. B. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the complaint averments would indicate that
the petitioner was boarding and alighting from one
compartment to another and also trying to search luggage of
the passengers. However, no independent witnesses have been
examined to substantiate the said contention.
7. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the official witnesses and their
evidence ought not to have considered without corroboration.
The Courts below committed error in considering the evidence
of official witnesses and recorded the conviction which is
erroneous and the same is unsustainable.
8. It is further submitted that in the cross-examination
of P.W.1, he submits that he has not recorded any statement of
passengers to substantiate that the petitioner was searching
the luggage of other passengers. Similarly, another witness
who is examined as P.W.2, working as a police constable in the
Railway Department, admitted in his cross-examination that
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
he had not seen the appellant in the railway station prior to
8.00 p.m.
9. As these witnesses are the official witnesses and
they have not recorded the statement of independent
witnesses, credibility to the official witnesses should not have
been given by the Courts below. In the absence of independent
witnesses, relying on the evidence official witnesses and
rendering the conviction is erroneous and not proper.
Therefore, the same is liable 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 judgment of
conviction and its confirmation order passed by the Courts
below and submitted that, the evidence of official witnesses
cannot be discarded on the ground that they are the official and
interested witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded on
the ground that they are the official witnesses and interested in
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
rendering the conviction. In fact, their evidence should also be
considered after thorough scrutiny.
11. He further submitted that as the petitioner was
roaming from one compartment to another without valid ticket
and he was also touching or searching luggage of the co-
passengers, hence, he was arrested and the Courts below have
rightly held that he has committed offence under the aforesaid
provisions. Therefore, interference with the said findings was
not necessary. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP
prays to dismiss the petition.
12. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused
the findings recorded by the Courts below in rendering the
conviction, it is appropriate to state the Section 96(B) of
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 which reads as under:
"96. Being found under suspicious circumstances
between sunset and sunrise.
- Whoever is found between sunset and sunrise,-
(a)armed with any dangerous instrument with intent to
commit an offence, or(b)having his face covered, or
otherwise disguised with intent to commit an offence,
or(c)in any dwelling house or other building, or boat,
without being able satisfactorily to account for his
presence there, or(d)lying or loitering in any street,
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
yard or other place, being a reputed thief and without
being able to give satisfactory account of himself,
or(e)having in his possession without lawful excuse
(the burden of proving which excuse shall be on such
person) any implement of house breaking, shall, on
conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months."
13. On reading of the aforesaid provisions, it appears
that if any person who is found between sunset and sunrise
armed with any dangerous instrument or having his face
covered, or in any dwelling house without being satisfactorily
to account for his presence there, or lying or loitering in any
street, yard or other place, be liable to be prosecuted.
14. However, in the present case, on going through the
evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the evidence of all these witnesses
did not disclose the aforesaid ingredients as against the
petitioner. Further the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
have grossly committed errors in recording the conviction on
the strength of the official witnesses without independent
corroboration. Therefore, in my considered view, the said
findings are not proper and relevant. Hence, the said findings
are liable to be set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:7420
15. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, dated 10.06.2014 passed in
C.C.No.581/2012 by the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kadur and the judgment and order dated
14.07.2016 passed in Crl.A. No.81/2014 by the
learned II Additional Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 96 (b) of
Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
