Allowed

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman v. the State

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024CRL.RP/400/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision petition against conviction for vehicle theft. The car was recovered during investigation, not at the accused's instance, and the confession led to no discovery of any fact, so Section 27 of the Evidence Act barred proving it. The court acquitted the petitioner and set aside the lower judgments.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman Vs the State — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10240 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 400 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED SADIQ @ SALEEM SALMAN S/O MOHAMMED SAHID AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A RAMPURA, DASANGUTTI CHIKKANGALA VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577548.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE BY THE AJJAMPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397, 399 & 401 OF CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 8.4.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKMAGALORE, IN CRL.A.NO.39/2015, REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:10240 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2015

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC .

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint stating that his Maruthi Esteem Car bearing registration No.KA-19-M-3773 was stolen by an unknown person on 27.07.2011. P.W.6, during the course of investigation in Crime No.276/2011, received a credible information on 30.08.2014 that the subject vehicle is parked near Madari Palya. Thereafter, he along with the mahazar witnesses went to the spot, and recovered the car with monkey cap, and 50 grams of Chilly powder packet. The petitioner was apprehended in Crime No.8/2011 of Ajjampura Police Station, and during interrogation, he is alleged to have confessed that he committed the theft of the subject vehicle. Thereafter, the police laid the charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.

¶21

The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W. 16 and marked documents at Exs. P.1 to P.10.

¶22

The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, passed the judgment of conviction holding that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The challenge to the judgment of conviction was negated by the Appellate Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:10240 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2015

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate that the petitioner had committed the theft of the subject vehicle, the order of conviction passed, solely on the confession statement, is impermissible in law.

¶26

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with documentary evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner committed the theft of the subject car, and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction, and the same does not want any interference.

¶27

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Trial Court records.

¶28

The FIR was lodged against the unknown person stating that the subject car belonging to the defacto complaint was stolen on 27.07.2011. During the course of investigation in Crime No.276/2011, the Investigating Officer received a credible information on 30.8.2014 that the subject vehicle was parked near Madari Palya, and thereafter, the subject car was recovered in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Admittedly, the subject vehicle was not recovered at the instance of the petitioner-accused herein. The petitioner was apprehended in Crime No.8/2011, and during the interrogation, he is alleged to have confessed that he committed the theft of the subject vehicle.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10240 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2015

¶31

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

¶32

To put it simply, the information received from the accused may be proved only upon such information leads to discovery of some fact. In the instant case, the information which is a confession statement of the accused has not led to discovery of new fact, and the subject vehicle was recovered not at the instance of the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner - accused solely based on the confession statement is contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of any corroborative material to establish that the petitioner committed the theft of the subject vehicle, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner - accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2015 passed in Crl.A No.39/2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalore, confirming the judgment and order dated

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:10240 CRL.RP No. 400 of 2015

¶37

¶38

23.3.2015 passed in CC No.8/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere is hereby set aside.

¶39

iii) The petitioner - accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of IPC, and the bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BKM

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagabhushan S P Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Prabhakar Shetty Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (Mescom)

Amtur Raphe Vs State of Karnataka

Voyager Apartment Pre Owners Association Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Prestige Bougainvillea Home Owners Association, Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (E)

B S Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka