Allowed

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

Telangana HC28 Jun 2023CRLA/1613/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal challenging the conviction of an accused for possession of stolen electricity wire. The court held that witness hostility and lack of evidence linking the seized material to specific theft crimes rendered the conviction unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the appellant was discharged from bail bonds.

Mohd Baba , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.30.12.2008 in Crl.A.M.P.No.2455 of 2008 in Crl.A.No.1613 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 TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1613 OF 2008

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) ot Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 20J2.2008 passed in Sp|.C.C.NO. 10 of 2008 on the fite of the I Additionat Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.ohd Baba, S/o. Rahman, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Business. R/o. Ranlole Villbge, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District.

¶10

APPELLANT/ACCUSED.6

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

TIIE HONOUI{ABLF] SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL API'EAL No.1613 OF 2008

¶20

ORDEIT:

¶21

The appellant/accu setl was convicted 1'ol the^offence punishable urtder Section^I 36(l)(b) read with^{Section137 of} Electricity Act (tbr short^''thc Act") and^{sentenced to undergo two} 1 (02) years of imprisonmcnt Spl.C.C.No.10 of 2008. The appellan ti accu sed is arrayecl^as accused^No.6. 2. lt is the casc o1-the prosccution that PW-8 viz., DVP Raju who rvas the Sub-lnspector of Police, on credible^{informationproceeded} to a placc in front of Sunder lsltat Iron Factory situatcd at^Ippalapally area around 5 :i0 a rn. ln the meanwhile, one auto^bearing No.AP 28 W 3149 carne there and stopped. The appellant/accused was found driving the said auto and accused Nos.l^{to 4 werealso} there in the said auto. [n all l)\V-8 and his team detected^aluminum electricity conductol wire in thc auto. PW-8 and otirers^questioned the accused Nos.l to 5 and recorded their confession. Pursuant to the said contbssion, the said 250 kg of electricity conductor wire was seizcd. According to the prosecution, the said 250 kgs ol wire was

¶22

¶23

¶24

subject matter of theft of aluminum^{wire pertaining} to crime Nos.^54, 55 and 56 of^2007.

¶25

The investigation was done by PW-8 who is Sub-lnspector of Police, and he 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 turned hostile to the prosecution. Only on the basis of PW-S 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.l to 4 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 136 (l)(a) which reads as follows;

¶26

( 1 ) Whoever, dishonestly -

¶27

o. Cuts or removes or takes way or trans,fers any electric line, material or meler from d tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation or any other place, or site where it may be righ{ully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, situated or located including during transportation, u,ithout the corLsent of the licensee I Subs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec. 13 for the words^"Any officer authorized" (w.e.f. l5th June 2007) 2 Subs. by Act 57 of 2003, Sec. 5 for the words^"has been or is being or is likely to be"^(w.e.f. 27th January, 20004). 7'he Electricity Act, 2003 - 102 - or the owner, as the case may be, u'hcther or not tlrc act is donc for pt'ofit or gain:

¶28

¶29

The appel lant/accu secl No.6 was convicted under^Section136

¶30

(l )(b) which reads as firllou's:

¶31

b. S tores,lr().! !.' lses ot'rtllrcnttst'kceps in^{his premises,<:ustody or control,} ary electric litte, ntaterial^t)1 t11('lr'1.\'ithoul^{thc consentof lhe ou'ner, u'helher or} rLol lhe acl is connnitled.for ltro.fil ctr^grtin;

¶32

The learncd counsel appcaring^{for the appellant/accusedwould} submit that thc lealned^{sessions judgecommittedan elror in} convicting the appellant/accu^{sed when all the witnesses of the} prosecution tumcd hostilc.^{-lhcre is} no evidence^{of any conl'ession or} seizure that rvas donc^{at the instance of this appellant/accused.Only} on the basis ol evide^{nce o} I^{I'W-8 who is interesled witnessthe} conviction cannot be^{sustainecl.Accordingly, prayed to acquitthe} appellant.

¶33

On the other hancl,^{thc lcarnedPublicProsecutor would submit} that though the^{indepcndentrvituessestumed hostile,the evidenceol} PW-S can be relied ttl)oll^{to convict the accused. 'fhe learned} Sessions Judge haci rightly^{lirLrnd that the evidence ol- PW-S was} sufficient to infel that^{theft was committedand since the material was}

¶34

in possession of'accused Nos. I to 6 prosecution has proved its case. AccordingJy, praved to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

¶36

The allegation against this appellant/accused is for possessing the electricity matedal. On the said date i.e.,07.10.2007 all the accused were apprehended along with the wire weighing 250 kgs. It is nowhere in the evidence of any of the witnesses, including PW-8 viz., 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 any.thing about the theft committed by accused Nos.l to 4.

¶37

The basis on which the seized wire of 250 kgs was segregated dnd 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. 1 to 4. ln 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.

¶38

The case of the prosecution suffers fiom hostility of witnesses and lack of proof. The solitary testimony of PW-8 and seizure cannot be made basis to infer that the said material of 250 kgs found is subject matter of four d ifferent crimes and that it was subjected to

¶39

¶40

theft. None oltlre clectricitv oI'ticets were examined or any person to

¶41

state that the said material was thcft property.

¶42

In view of the above llicts and circumstances, the appellant

¶43

succeeds and thc appeal is allori,ed

¶44

Miscellancous applications pending, if any, shall^stand closed. Bail

¶45

bonds are discharged

¶46

Sd,. K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

/ SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1.^{.Thel Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (With Recordsif any)}

¶51

The Station^{House Officer, Keshampet Police Station' Mahabubnagar'}

¶52

Two^{CCs to the Public Prosecutor'HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶53

One CC^{to SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶54

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2810612023

ORDER

1tr EST ,q rt o
.)
i'\ |) 1[ [tlE 2$n (.
'/
,4..
:,'2+ ,/
'*

¶62

CRLA.No.1613 of 2008

¶63

ALLOWING THE APPEAL (gq'u

¶64

Bvr

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