Karnataka High Court
Sri Lakshminarayana @ Lachi vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA @ LACHI
S/O SRI SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABPIT 31 YEARS
R/O CHOULURU
HINDUPRUA TALUK-515 201.
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH STATE.
2. SRI SHOUKATH @ SYED MIYA
S/O BASHEERA AHMED
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
Digitally R/O KADAMALAGUNTE-561 208.
signed by
LAKSHMI T GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
Location: CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
High Court
of Karnataka 3. SRI KANNARAM
S/O LEBURAM
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O. C/O. METAL SHOP, B H ROAD,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 208.
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
K.G.HALLI POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011
(BY SRI.K.RAHUL PAI. HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DT.19.11.2011 PASSED BY THE
I/C. I ADDL. DIST., AND S.J. TUMKUR IN SPL.C.NO.202/2007-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 136 AND 137 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 4 ARE SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.5,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY
SHALL UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS-FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 136 AND 137 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl.C.No.202/2007, wherein accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The trial Court has sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer imprisonment for six months. -3- CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011
3. Heard the Learned counsel for appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.
4. The case of prosecution is that on the night of 02.01.2007, accused Nos.1 to 3 dishonestly cut and removed 1,200 meters of copper wire worth about Rs.24,000/- from 11 KV line at Shanaganahalli between Kalenahalli and Veeranaganahalli villages and sold the same to accused No.4, who dishonestly received the stolen electric copper wire from them.
5. PW.2, Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM on receiving the information regarding theft of electric copper wire, went to the spot and after verifying the same, lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2 and a case was registered against unknown persons.
6. According to prosecution, accused No.1 was apprehended on 10.05.2007 and from his possession a -4- CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011 cutting plier was recovered under a mahazar Ex.P1 in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter, accused No.2 was also apprehended and at his instance, on 13.05.2007 from the shop of accused No.4 about 10 copper ingots weighing about 75 Kgs was recovered under a mahazar Ex.P5.
7. The prosecution has got marked Ex.P1-Mahazar regarding seizure of a cutting plier from accused No.1, Ex.P2, the complaint lodged by PW.2, Exs.P3 and P4, the spot mahazars where the theft of electric copper wire took place, Ex.P5, recovery of about 75 kgs of copper ingots at the instance of accused No.2, Ex.P7 and P9, the spots shown by accused Nos.1 and 2, Ex.P10 the mahazar with regard to recovery of copper ingots from the shop of one Suresh, at the instance of accused No.2 (in connection with Crime No.70/2006 of Kodigenahalli Police Station).
8. It is the specific case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of about 1,200 meters -5- CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011 of electric copper wire and thereafter sold the same to accused No.4.
9. Admittedly, what is seized in this case is the copper ingots. The incident of theft is alleged to have taken place on the night of 02.01.2007. Accused No.1 was arrested on 10.05.2007. At his instance a cutting plier is alleged to have been recovered which according to the prosecution was used to cut the copper wire. The said cutting plier was not produced and marked in this case.
10. As per Ex.P5 it was accused No.2 who led the Police and panch witnesses to the shop of accused No.4 from where about 75 kgs of copper ingots were recovered. The said mahazar was drawn on 13.05.2007 i.e., after more than 4 months from the date of alleged theft. The complainant namely the Assistant Executive Engineer who is examined as PW.2 has stated that about 1,200 meters of copper wire was stolen in Polenahalli and about 1,960 meters of copper wire was stolen in Kalenahalli. He has -6- CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011 stated that after one year from the date of drawing the panchnama he was called by the Police and shown about 12 copper ingots. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he cannot say that MO.1 i.e, the 10 copper ingots recovered in the case is made from the same copper wire which was stolen. He has stated that he cannot say as to the correct weight of 1,200 and 1,960 meters of copper wire. Further stated that he can not say that the copper ingots which are produced and marked as MO.1 before the Court is the same copper ingots which was shown to him by the police.
11. The prosecution has got examined the panch witnesses to Ex.P5, recovery mahazar. The said panch witnesses namely PWs.3 and 4 have completely turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Further PWs.5, 6 and 9 have also turned hostile to the prosecution case. There is no corroboration by the independent witnesses regarding seizure of copper ingots at the instance of accused No.2. The prosecution -7- CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011 has also not established beyond reasonable doubt that MO.1 seized in this case was made out of the copper electric wire which was stolen on the night of 02.01.2007.
12. Having carefully gone through the evidence and material on record, this Court finds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to convict the accused for the charged offences. The accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and therefore the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Spl. C. No.202/2007 convicting and sentencing appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Electricity Act, 2003 is set aside.-8-
CRL.A No. 1288 of 2011
The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Electricity Act, 2003. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
SD/-
JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18