Karnataka High Court
Union Of India By Inspector vs Sri K. Selvam on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
CRL.A No. 333 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2013 (A)
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA BY INSPECTOR
RPF, BANGALORE CANTT,
BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)
AND:
1. SRI K. SELVAM
S/O KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT VIGIL FACTORY QTRS,
LINGADAHALLI,
HASSAN MAIN ROAD,
TIPTUR,TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
Digitally signed by
2. SRI R VELU
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
S/O RAMASWAMY,
OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O B B ROAD,
NEAR KOGIL CROSS,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. DESU REDDY, ADV. FOR R2,
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 PASSED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
CRL.A No. 333 of 2013
HC-KAR
P.O., SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.766/2003 -ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.3(a) OF THE RP(UP) ACT, 1966.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding officer,
Special Court for Economic Offences at Bengaluru in
C.C No.766/2003 dated 26.09.2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that
the Inspector of RPF, Bangalore Cantonment Bangalore
has laid the charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for
the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the RP(UP)
Act, 1966.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on
26.12.2002 at about 06:10 hours, the complainant along
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
with his staff were on confidential watch duty at Kogilu
Cross, Near NH-7 Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore. During that
time, the Accused No.1, was going towards Eastern side
from Southern side with an aluminum sheet folded in his
left shoulder armpit. On suspicion, he was detained and
during the enquiry, the accused No.1 was questioned
about his identity and how he came in possession of
Railway Property. He revealed his name as K.Selvam,
working as Track-Man, Gang No.8, Yelahanka, under the
control of P.W.1, Yelahanka. Further, the accused No.1 has
stated that he was taking Aluminum Reflective Board to
dispose in the scrap shop for monetary benefits and also
confessed that he had committed theft of similar type of
materials in the premises of Old PW1/O/YNK and he
volunteered to point out the spot where he had stolen
Railway Reflective Boards and the scrap shop in which he
had disposed off stolen Railway Materials. On further
enquiry, the accused No.1 failed to give satisfactory
explanation regarding the possession of the said properties
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
and he has not produced any bill or voucher for such
property. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged
offence.
5. After filing the charge-sheet, the case was
registered in C.C No.766/2003, the charges were framed
by the trial Court and same were read over and explained
to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 9
witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and 25 documents
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P25 and three Material
Objects were marked as MOs.1 to 3. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
The accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witness but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence
on their behalf.
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the arguments on both the sides,
the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this
appeal.
8. The Learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri Rangaswamy.R submitted that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is
contrary to law. Evidence and materials were placed on
record. PW1 and PW5 categorically deposed before the
Court that they recorded the statement of accused No.2
and the confessional statement of accused No.1, and on
the said confessional statement the police have searched
the shop of accused No.2 and conducted mahazar in the
presence of panchas and recorded the statement which
clearly establishes that both the accused have committed
the alleged offence. The trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts and sought for allowing this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
9. Sri.Desu Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, remained absent and unrepresented. Hence,
arguments on behalf of the respondents is taken as nil.
10. Having heard the arguments of learned High
Court Government Pleader and on perusal of materials,
the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the State has made out a ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
11. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case
and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the
dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and
power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of
acquittal.
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
12. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE
SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus:
"23. While considering the scope of power of the
appellate court in an appeal against the order of
acquittal, after referring to various judgments,
in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415,
this Court summarised the principle as under:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."
13. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported
in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment
it is held as under:
"16. The High Court in the present case was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case,
it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that
a different view is possible or even preferable. The High
Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order
of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The
interference of the High Court in such cases is governed
by well-established principles. According to these
principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence
by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are
without evidence that the High Court may reverse an
order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in
interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is
not in accordance with law and that the approach of the
trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."
14. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE
OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at
paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan
on the other hand contended that the power of the High
Court while hearing an appeal against an order of
acquittal is in no way different from the power while
hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court,
therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire
evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based.
The High Court having examined the reasons of the
learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of
PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there
has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis-
appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for
acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of
acquittal and no error can be said to have been
committed. It is too well settled that the power of the
High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal
is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a
conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the
entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are
reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and
the other indicating conviction, then the High Court
would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal,
merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial
court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating
the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the
High Court should give proper weight and consideration
to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the
judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely
perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong
appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and
proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of
acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise,
there would be gross miscarriage of justice...."
15. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.
KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at
paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that
the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it
is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely
because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction
to be more probable. The interference would be
warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
16. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at
paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a
competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the
trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then
the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden
on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No
doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the
power of the appellate court to review, re-appreciate
and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon
which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has
to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless
there are compelling and substantial grounds to
interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court
while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for
such a conclusion."
17. In the case on hand, I have carefully examined
materials placed before this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
18. It is an admitted fact that the people were
moving at the time of detention of the accused, but, none
of the independent witnesses supported the official
testimony. As to the drawing of mahazar, seizure of
railway property from the possession of the accused, the
independent witnesses turned hostile. This is clearly
leading to doubt the prosecution's case as to the
recovery.
19. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to hold
that the accused are having intent to sale or had the
possession of the property. It is also not proved that the
accused is having the unlawful possession of railway
property by the way of theft or stealing.
20. The RP(UP) Act, does not attach more
authenticity to the official witnesses. It only states that
the I.O. is entitled to enquire the matter and record the
statement u/s.9 of the RP(UP) Act and that could be
relied in evidence. Unlike, the confessional statement in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
police cases, some reliance could be placed on the
accused. But, that is not the sole basis to take the proof
of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
statement and evidence of official testimony should
withstand the vigor of the cross-examination and it should
be consistent in order to be appreciated and relied upon.
21. In this case, the nature of the property belongs
to railways and its identity and the fact that it is missing
from concerned department, is not established with
documentary evidence, apart from, inconsistent oral
testimony of P.W.1 to 9. The absence of independent
corroboration also casts doubt to place reliance on official
testimony alone under the facts and circumstances of the
case.
22. However, in this case, the official testimony
inter-se is not corroborative in order to rely upon, beyond
all reasonable doubt, as to the railway property found in
unauthorized possession of the accused. The burden is
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
more, when it is alleged that the accused is the Railway
Employee and the material objects are found within the
premises of Railways.
23. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the official
testimony alone. It is admitted that there are employees
to safe guard the railways property, and the railway
employees are deployed for protecting the property for
the accountability. The manner in which the property was
taken and whether any person was present while seizing
the materials is not substantiated with connecting
circumstantial evidence. Hence, the benefit of doubt is
conferred in favour of the accused.
24. The complainant/RPP has relied the decisions
reported in 1979 Cr.L.J., 1193 (SC), 1973 Cr.L.J., Page
No.1098 (Allahabad), 2001 Cr.L.J., Page No.58 (Bombay),
2001 Cr.L.J., Page No.3828 (Caluctta HC), 1975 Cr.L.J.,
Page No.952 (AP), 1974 Cr.L.J., page No. 1240
(Allahabad HC) Evidence of Official witnesses are to be
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
believed, 2003(4) Crime page 217(SC), Railway Servant
Acting as Panch, 1976 Crl.L.J., Page No. 1859 (Bombay
HC), Minor Discrepancies to be over looked. 1978 Crl.J.
page 1612 (SC) PARA-B. The principles laid down in the
above said decisions are also observed while assigning
the reasons. The neighboring witnesses who corroborated
the proceedings are not examined to prove the
observation mahazar. The property was within the
possession of accused and it is unlawfully obtained and it
belonging to the railways is not shown through records.
Even the ancillary documents are not produced in order to
prove the seizure.
25. The learned counsel for the accused has further
relied upon the decisions reported in 1) 1995 Cri.L.J.,
3962 (Orissa High Court), 2) 1993(1) Crimes, 416
(Madras High Court), 3) 1982 Cri.L.J., 2253 (Gauhati High
Court), 4) 1998 Cri.L.J., 2109, 5) Criminal Appeal in
CC.No.272/1992, 5) Criminal. Revision Petition
No.671/1989, 6) 1993 Crl.L.J.,2609 (Supreme Court), 7)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
IV(2002) CCR 419 8) 2006 Crl.L.J. 660 (Orissa High
Court), 9) 1979 Crl.L.J., 287 (Calcutta High Court), 10)
1991 Crl.L.J., 3065 (Allahabad High Court), 11)
Judgement copy of Hon'ble High Court, dated: 2nd
Dec.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.679/2011 &12) 2002
Crl.L.J., 1090 (Patna High Court). The principles laid down
in the above said decisions are aptly applicable to the
case on hand and the facts and circumstance enunciated
therein is to be adopted.
26. The principles laid down in the above said
decisions are appreciable and confession statement of the
accused though reliable, should be corroborated by the
official testimony and it is authenticity. But, in this case,
there is inconsistent official testimony, which defeats
reliability of the statement. Hence, benefit of doubt is
conferred in favour of the accused & the prosecution has
failed to establish that the properties are the railway
properties and it was found in unlawful possession of the
accused and it has been seized out of the possession of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubts.
27. The trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and
the trial Court has also rightly come to the conclusion
that, though the case is corroborated by the official
testimony, there is no consistency in the evidence of
official witnesses, which defeats the relevancy of the
statement and accordingly benefit of doubt was given to
the accused and acquitted the accused. Therefore, on re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any
error/illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the trial Court. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in the mind of
the aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that the State
has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in
the Negative.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44390
HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.2:
28. For the foregoing reasons and discussions,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed;
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
KBM
