Bangalore District Court
Sriharsha Alias Harsha Krishna Shetti vs Yeshwanthpura P.S on 8 December, 2025
KABC010202182023
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 08th day of December, 2025
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil., B.A., LL.B(Spl).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.A.No. 1035/2023
Appellant/ 1. Sriharsha @ Harsha Krishna Shetti
Accused: s/o Krishna Shetti
aged about 36 years
r/at No. 5, 3rd main, 9th cross
Rameshnagar, Marathalli
ADA near Marathhalli colony
Bengaluru 560 037.
2. Govardhan @ Govardhan Malla
s/o Venugopal
aged about 34 years
r/at No. 565/5/534, Ward No. 8
Jain Street, Chamrajpet
Bangalore 560 018
(By Sri. Sandeep Lahiri , Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent/ State of Karnataka
Complainant by Yeshwanthapura police,
Bengaluru.
2
Crl.A.No. 1035/2023
Judgment
(By Public Prosecutor )
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/accused praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2023 passed by the XXIV ACMM in CC No. 8839 of 2020 and to acquit him in the said case for the offence punishable u/sec. 427 of IPC and u/sec. 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
2. The appellant of this appeal was the accused before the Trial Court. The respondent/ Yeshwanthpur police of this appeal was the complainant before the Trial court. The rank of the parties to this appeal will be hereinafter referred to with the same rank as assigned to them before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts which leads to file this appeal in nutshell are as follows;
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the accused persons being the representatives of M/s.R.N.S.Infrastructure Ltd., on 25/01/2020 within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, in front of ESI hospital, opposite to Mysore lamp , 8th main, Malleshwaram, the accused persons without obtaining any previous permission from KPTCL and without digging test pit, dug at the spot negligently and thereby caused damage to the cable 1000 AQM, XLPE, copper EHV cable line EFR and OCR line fixed from NRS to IISC and thereby caused loss of 3 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment Rs.6 lakhs to KPTCL and committed the offence u/s.427 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
3. On the basis of the com the complainant had appeared before the police and lodged the complaint which came to be registered as Cr. No. 25/2020 for the offence u/sec. u/s.427 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
4. The trial court, after full fledged trial and after hearing the arguments and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record passed the judgment dated 04.07.2023 by convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s.427 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. .
5. The accused being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction of the trial court has preferred this appeal.
6. Grounds of appeal in nutshell as urged in the appeal memorandum are as follows:-
a) The order of conviction passed by the Trial court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities and same is liable to be set-aside.
b) That none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused as the persons who were operating the JCB to dig the pit, neither they identified the accused as those in effective control and management of the company. There is no eye 4 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment witness to the alleged incident and then the chain for the circumstantial evidence breaks to connect the accused as per the persons who were operating the JCB.
c) the spot mahazar was drawn after 3 days of the alleged incident. The evidence lead by the IO refers to only 2 photos taken 3 days after commission of the offence. The photos goes to show that the power cables were not covered in sand with precast RCC slab on top of it.
d) The learned Magistrate has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants have dug the trench as per Ex.P. 3 and 4 photos based on the disputed admission of the accused, based on the fact that JCB was at the spot.
d) The prosecution alleged that the appellants have caused damage to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs to KPTCL, however KPTCL has not initiated any proceedings to recover the said amount from the accused.
d) The Trial Court has gravely erred in not noticing the discrepancies. The Trial Court erred in convicting the accused.
On these and amongst other grounds as urged in the appeal memorandum, the appellant has prayed to allow the appeal and prayed to acquit him for the offences stated above.
7. After filing of the appeal, it is registered as Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 and notice was issued to the respondent. After service of 5 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment the notice, the respondent has appeared through P.P. before the court. Thereafter, the trial court record was called for. After securing the trial court record, the matter was posted for arguments.
8. Heard the argument on both side, Perused the appeal memorandum, trial court record and other materials on record.
9. The points that arise for consideration before this court are as under:
(1) Whether the judgment passed by the trial court is just and proper and in accordance with law?
(2) Whether the interference of this court is required in the impugned judgment of the trial court?
(3) What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.2 .. In the Affirmative
(3) Point No.3 .. As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1 AND 2 :- These two points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
6Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment
12. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal before this court being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court in CC No. 8839/2020 which was registered against accused for the offences stated above and the Trial Court convicted the accused for the above said offence.
13. The appellants have contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper manner. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons being the representatives of M/s.R.N.S.Infrastructure Ltd., on 25/01/2020 within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, in front of ESI hospital, opposite to Mysore lamp , 8 th main, Malleshwaram, the accused persons without obtaining any previous permission from KPTCL and without digging test pit, dug at the spot negligently and thereby caused damage to the cable 1000 AQM, XLPE, copper EHV cable line EFR and OCR line fixed from NRS to IISC and thereby caused loss of Rs.6 lakhs to KPTCL and committed the offence u/s.427 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
15. After full fledged trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo SI for one year. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment
16. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and got marked Ex.P. 1 to P.6.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no role or involvement of the appellant in the alleged incident, the appellants are merely the employees of M/s RNS Infrastructure Ltd and had no supervisory, managerial or decision making authority in the execution of the work. That the actual excavation work was subcontracted by RNS to a third party agency, which deployed and operated the JCB machinery, the appellants were not involved in the digging activity. The appellants neither operated the JCB nor supervised the excavation. They were not Engineers, Site Managers, Technical Supervisors, or JCB operators. The were also not persons in charge or responsible for the conduct of business of RNS in relation to the white topping work. The respondent erroneously implicated the appellants solely on the basis of their employment with RNS, without any material showing their involvement. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to establish the presence of the appellants at the site at the time of alleged evennt, their participation in excavation and that it was the appellants who dug the pit through JCB or that they caused or contributed to the alleged damage. There is no eye witness. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. The spot mahazar was conducted 3 days after the alleged incident.
18. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence to establish any personal act or 8 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment participation of the appellants. PW. 1 the complainant only states that a power cable tripped on 25.1.2020 and that RNS Infrastructure had used JCB for excavation. His evidence contains no statement that the appellants operated the JCB, supervised the work, or caused the alleged damage. The mere statement that the appellants were present at the spot does not disclose any act, role, control or intent attributable to them.
19. It is also argued that PW. 2 and 5 only speaks to the drawing of the mahazar on 28.1.2020, their testimony does not mention either appellants or their involvement. PW. 3 deposed generally that some persons dug the pits and the cable was damaged and that it was informed that RNS Infrastructure dug the pit. He has not identified the appellants, nor attribute any physical act to them. PW. 4 states that `some persons` had dug the put and that a JCB was found at the spot. There is no reference to the appellants, their presence, or any act committed by them. Pw. 6 states only that he visited the spot on 28.01.2020 and drew the mahazar, His testimony is post facto and does not relate to the alleged incident on 25.01.2020. The only documents Ex.P. 1 complaint, Ex.P. 2 spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 and 4 photos, Ex.P. 5 statement of PW. 3. Ex.P. 6 FIR do not identify, implicate or connect the appellants to either the operation of JCB or any act of the damage . The mahazar only refers to work being carried out by RNS Infrastructure, it contains no reference to the appellants. The photos were taken three days later. Ex.P. 4 reveals that the power cable was not protected with RCC slabs as required by safety 9 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment norms. This indicates negligence on the part of KPTCL, not any wrongful act by the appellants. While PW. 1 initially claims presence of appellants, in cross examination he admits that only PW. 4,5 and JCB were present. Thus identification is not established. No witness identifies the appellants as the persons who dug the pit or operated the JCB, no role is attributed to them. The prosecution has also not traced, examined or charged the JCB operators, who would be the only person physically capable of causing the alleged damage.
20. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the written arguments furnished by the learned counsel for the appellants, it reveals that the appellants have totally denied the case of the prosecution and their involvement in the alleged crime. There is no applicability of Sec. 427 of IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act. The conviction u/sec. 427 of IPC and Sec. 3 of the PDPP Act is unsustainable as the essential ingredients of both offences are not fulfilled. U/sec. 425 of IPC, mischief requires a voluntary and intentional act aimed at causing wrongful loss or damage. Mere accidental or negligent damage, without mens rea or intention, does not constitute mischief, Correspondingly Sec. 427 of IPC applies only where mischief causes damage exceeding Rs. 50/-. In the present case , there is no evidence to show that the appellants acted with any intention or knowledge to cause damage to the cable; at best, the incident was an accidental contact during authorized public work, which falls outside the scope of Sec. 427 of IPC.
10Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment
21. Further u/sec. 3 r/w sec. 2(a) of the PDPP Act the prosecution must establish willful destruction of public property. The expression `destruction ` in Sec. 3 contemplates a deliberate act, and not accidental impact arising during lawful civil works undertaken under valid BBMP work orders. There is no allegation, much less proof or any malicious or deliberate act by the appellants, therefore, in the absence of mens rea and in the face of admitted public utility work being carried out under Government authorization, the ingredients of Se.c 427 of IPC and Sec. 3 of the PDPP Act are not attracted, rendering the conviction liable to be set aside. The requirement of intention and when criminal liability is attracted which is discussed in the case of P.B.Desai vs. State of Maharastra 2013(15) SCC 481 at para 42, 45, 46 and 47.
22. Thus it can be said that the prosecution has failed to establish any of the essential elements necessary to sustain the conviction. The prosecution has no proved the guilt of the appellant, there is no evidence that the appellant possessed the licence or qualification to operate JCB. The learned Magistrate instead of requiring the prosecution to discharge its initial burden of proof, drew adverse inference solely from the suggestion made in the cross examination. Further KPTCL has not initiated any proceedings to recover the said amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from the accused. There is no proof of presence, no proof of participation, no identification , no mens rea and no casual link connecting the appellants to the alleged act, The conviction rests entirely on conjecture and an erroneous inference drawn from the suggestion 11 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment in the cross examination, rather than on legal evidence. The findings of the Magistrate are therefore internally inconsistent, contrary to law, and unsustainable, warranting interference by this court. As such, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the trial court is deserves to be set aside and appeal filed by the appellant is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly , this court answers Point No.1 in the Negative and Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
23. Point No.3:- In view of the findings on point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
12Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate order.;
ORDER The Appeal filed by the appellants u/s.374 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2023 passed by the XXIV ACMM in CC No. 8839 of 2020 convicting the accused for the offence u/sec. u/sec. 427 of IPC and u/sec. 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. is hereby set aside.
Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused are not found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. u/ sec. 427 of IPC and u/sec. 3 & 4 of Prevention of 13 Crl.A.No. 1035/2023 Judgment Damage to Public Property Act. and hence they are hereby acquitted for the offence stated above.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
Send back the Trial court records along with copy of this judgment.
(Dictated to the SG I, directly on computer, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025).
Digitally signed by GANGAPPA GANGAPPA I PATIL
I PATIL Date: 2025.12.16
17:36:01 +0530
( GANGAPPA IRAPPA PATIL )
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.