Allowed

Mohd Baba, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC28 Jun 2023CRLA/1611/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal convicting accused for stealing electricity wires. Court held conviction unsustainable as prosecution witnesses turned hostile and no evidence proved severed material belonged to multiple thefts. Bail granted.

What did the court decide?

A/Crl.A allowed, conviction quashed, bail bonds discharged, miscellaneous applications pending shall stand dismissed.

Mohd Baba, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

Bail slip: The Accused was^{released on bail vide court orderdated13/1212008'} Crl.MP.2453 of²⁰⁰⁸ in Crl.A.No.1611^{of 2008}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO: 1611 OF 2008}

¶7

Criminal Appeal^{Under Section 374(2)of Cr'P'C againstthe Judgment made} in Spl.cc No.8 of 2008^{daled 20.12.2008 on the file of the court of the I Additional} Sessions Judge at^{Mahabubnagar.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Baba S/o^Rahman

¶10

...APPELLANT/Accused^No.6

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P} '^at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ComPlainant

¶14

CRL.A.M.P^{.NO: 2453 OF 2008}

¶15

PetitionunderSection3Bg(1)ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to suspend the^{operationof the sentence of judgment dated 20'12'2008} madeinSpl.CCNo.Sof2008bythelAdditionalSessionsJudge, Mahabubnagar, and^{release the petitioner/A-6 on bail,pending disposal of the} crimrnal appeal.

¶16

Counsel forthe^{Appellant: Mr. Mohd'Adnan, Advocate}

¶17

Counsel for^{the Sole Respondent: The Public Prosecutor}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:JUDGEMENT}

¶19

¶20

I'tIE IT( NoT]R,\BT,E SItI.'USTICE K.SI.]RI]\ DT]II

¶21

C^(l N{lN,\L APPli.r\1. No. 16ll Oli 2008

¶22

OITDEIT:

¶23

I'hc a1-'rc lant/accLrsed \'ils convictcd l,.l the ollence punishabl,: ur le^- Seclion 136( I Xb) read rvi h Scclion 137 o1' Illcctricitl Acl (or short^"the Act") and sentenoc(l to rrndergo two ln (02 ) )'ears t-- inrprisonmcnl Spl.C.C Nr 8 rl 2008. I'he appcllar-rt/accr-r. .:rl is arraycd as .rc,:uscd No.6. 2. It is the r r.e .r1'thc prosecution that PW-7 r,iz.. I)'P laju rvho rvas thc Sub-lr sl ector'^,r1- Police , on crediblc intirrrnrrt icn plocecdcd to a place in 1l'r nr ol'Suncicr Is1'ra1 l1-e11 Factory situute c at Ippalapalty area around 5: 0 arn. ln thc nr,:anri hile, one iut.r hc:r^jr s l,lo.AP 28 W 3l-19^()anrc tlrcrl-' and stopped. l'he appellant^'acc.r iel v,as lirund dliving the sa^j I rrulo and accLrrie(l Nos.I to 4 w;rc .rl ic, th()re iu the saicl auto In r I PW-7 and hi; teaur dctectetl trlurnirru n trlcctr-icity conductor u,ilr. itr the auto. P\/-l'and others qu,:stion:rl thr) accLrscd Nos.l to 5 a d r',:corcled tht:ir conl-ession. P:rrsuarr'. to the said confcssio'r. tht siticl 250 kg o1'elt,'ctricity conrluctor rvir-,.r u,ts seizecl Accolding to L rc proscclrtior-r. thc said 250 kqs o1'r,rir-r. u,rrs sulrjcct

¶24

¶25

¶26

matter of theft of aluminum wirc perlaining to crirne Nos. 54, 55 and 56 of 2007 .

¶27

The investigation was done by PW-7-Sub-lnspector of Police, who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet. During the course of cross examination, there were eight witnesses who were examined and all the independent mediators in the said case tumed hostile to the prosecution. Only on the basis of PW-7 who was present at the scene and seized the auto had narrated regarding the appellant/accused and accused Nos.l to 4 being caught along with 250 kgs of wire. Accused Nos. I to 4 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 136 (1)(a) which reads as follows;

¶28

(1) Whoever, dishonestly -

¶29

o. Cuts or removcs or lakcs way or lranskrs any clectric line, material or meler /rom a towcr, pole, ary othcr inslallalion or placc o/ installation or any olher place, or site wlrcre il nay bc rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kcpl, stockcd, siluated or located including during lransportation, without the consent of the licensee I Sl'bs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec. 13 for the words^"Any olficer authorized" (w.eJ l5th June 2007) 2 Subs. by Act 57 of 2003, Sec. 5lor the words^"has been or is being or is likely to be" (w.e.f. 27th January, 20004). The Eleclricity Act, 2003 - 102 - or llrc oy'ner, as tlte case may be, wlrclher or not the act is clonc for proJit or gain;

¶30

¶31

'fhr: a1;1', :llant/accuscd \o.(r t,as convictel undlt Settton lJ6

¶32

(1)(b) u,hich rr rrls as lirllorvs;

¶33

b. ,\tot.rt.s, /)r .rl'.s.!rt-! or o'ltcrtti:t' ,;t't'Jt.s in lti.s lttr'nt,scs (r.\t,)dt, ot. tontt'ol, dlll tl((tri( iint, t lerial or ntclertit!ttntt lhe tott.st'ttt t,l'lltc ot, ar, r'hclltL,r or not lhc uct s e)nt ,1,'te.l.[or ltt ofil or^quitt.

¶34

'fht: lear crl courrscl app()aring for thc appt:llanr/ l( cused would submit that tl e learncrl sessions judge com ntlt(:( aD effor llt convictinq thc ;. ppclla nt^i.lccur;e(l when all th: rv t'tr:sses ol' the plosccutic)n tur rt'l hoslilc T'[relc is no evi(lcnce ,rf irlr con].:ssion or seizurc thrt urr i llone at thc in:;tance of this app,-'llunt, l,r.cused, Only on thc bzrsis t l' cvidence ol l'W-7 rvho is interesle( r.vi ncss the convictior can rc. be sustaine(|. Accordingly, prale,l t() arquit the appcllant.

¶35

On the o rr:r hand. llie leirrnccl Public l)rosccutr:r',,.ould subr-r-rit that though thc ir Jepenrlent witnesscs turned hostilc, llre evrdencc of PW-7 carr be^'t:lied upon to convict the ac<'usccl.^-he learned Sessions Judgc l.ad rightlv fbrrntl that the evidenc.e .rl P\V-7 rvas sufllcient to inll r' .hat thcli was iot)lntitted and sirrcc lhr: rnat,:r'ial r.vas in possessron o irccused Nos.l to 5 prosecution ras proi.sfl its case Accor.cling[y,, pl r] rd to disn.riss thc rppeal

¶36

¶37

The allegation against this appellant/accused is for possessing the electricity material. On the said date i.e.,07.10.2007 alt the accused were apprehended along with the wire weighing 250 kgs. It is nowhere in the cvidence of any ol the witnesses, including PW-7 investigation officer as to how the police have identified that entire 250 kgs pertain to four different theft cases. No witnesses who were examined who spoke anything about the theft committed by accused Nos.l to 4

¶38

The basis on which the seized wire of 250 kgs was segregated and claimed by the prosecution that it pertains to four different crimes is wholly unconvincing. Except for the oral statement of the investigation officer, there is no other evidence to even remotely suggest that theft was committed by accused Nos.i to 4. In the absence of any such evidence or proof that theft was committed, the question of appellant being in possession of electric wire or material which was subjected to theft doesn't arise

¶39

The case of the prosecution suffers from hostility of witnesses and lack of prooL The solitary testimony of PW-7 and seizure cannot be made basis to infer that the said material of 250 kgs lound is subject matter of four different crimes and that it was subjected to

¶40

¶41

thcft. Nonc ol tlrc r:lectricity o1'liccrs were examined t r rny^{person to}

¶42

state that the :r ri:l nraterial u,as thcll property.

¶43

9 In vrcr, of 'he abovc f ircts and circurnstance:. lhc lppcllant

¶44

succeeds and I rc al)peal is allowcd. Bail bonds a-.e tlrsr:h rrg:

¶45

Miscclll re .ru; application; pcnding, if any. sJrall stl Ir(lrcl()scd

¶46

Sd/.IJI.'VIJ,AYA^BHASKAR ..IOII,JT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' ( a. 1L)

¶47

I;EC:TION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

l.lAdditionalir:rssionsJudge,Mahabubnagar(Wtlrtiecrrds) Z. One CC to^{tvl, hrl Adnan, Advot;ate (OPUC)} 5. i;; 6c.i,i^{F ri. lic Prosecutor,Highcourt for the State::f Telangana} Hyderatrad^{(( J f)} 4 Two CD CoP^s 5 One Spare^{C ,P} 7

kvon

HIGH COURI

DATED:28.0t,,;;!023

JUDGMENT

CRL.A.No.16' 1 of 2008

¶57

,1, .1 SlaT6
27t
';o'
c vz
/Jto ?$8 L)
Itf , S'.i
, ,,, i
'\ ,t, I
-.,r1
I t rr )lr-!---,
-i:
- -'-.-:-)>"

¶58

ALLOWING T !ilE CRL.A.

¶59

@'ria

¶60

d.) aa\

Mohd Baba, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Baba, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurma Kamalakar and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Bhutreddy Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Raju P. Shah Vs The State of Telangana

Kotte Anil Kumar Vs K.Sunithas Shalini

Mohd Baba , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Chilukuri Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Telanagana