- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.869 OF 2018 BETWEEN: FAYAZ AHAMED S/O IMTIYAZ SAB AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE RESIDENT OF NEHRUNAGAR 1ST CROSS, HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.1022/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ADN SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.85/2017 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL CHARGES. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.11 10:45:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The respondent/accused No.2-Fayaz Ahmed has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence 14.11.2017 passed in CC.No.1022/2016 on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Chitradurga, which is confirmed by the I Addl. District and Session Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.No.85/2017 dated 02.05.2018. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per on their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga, has filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offense under Section 454 and 380 of IPC. On 23.03.2015 at 12.30 p.m. the accused have entered into the house of CW.1, situated in re survey No.70/2 of Medehalli village and lurking of house trespassed into the pump house by breaking open the lock with iron rod and committed a theft of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 10 ft., length 2 inches diameter, old iron pipes and tried to transport the same in auto rickshaw bearing No. KA-16-2997. Thereby, accused committed offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. 4. The accused Nos.1 and 2 arrested on the same day and produced before the Court and were remanded to the judicial custody. The accused No.2 released on bail on 04.04.2016. After filing the charge sheet, charges framed for the alleged offences, same was read over and explained to the accused. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 7 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to 7. 12 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to 12. And iron pipes marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. was recorded, accused has totally denied evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 under Section 454 and 380 IPC, and passed a sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year 9 months for the offence under Section 380 of IPC and fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default of payment of fine the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are also convicted for the offence under Section 454 of IPC, for a period of two years each simple imprisonment. Further it is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- out of the fine amount to the CW.1- complainantas compensation and remaining Rs.2,000/- to the State. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence the accused No.2 has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.85/2017 and the same came to be dismissed on 02.05.2018. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both Courts the accused No.2-Fayaz Ahmed has preferred this revision petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 that there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilty of the accused. IO has not collected any materials as to the broken lock. The IO has also not collected any materials to show that there was a pump house situated in survey No. 70/2 and even IO has not produced any documents to show that the Sy.No.70/2 was standing in the name of the younger brother of the complainant. 8. Absolutely there are no materials to attract the provisions of Section 454 and 380 of IPC. However, both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing this revision petition. 9. As against this, the learned HCGP would submit that both Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with the law and facts. There are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and sought for dismissal of this revision petition. 10. I have examined the materials placed before me. Before appreciating the materials on record, it is necessary to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 mention as to essential ingredients to prove the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. To bring home the guilt of accused under Section 454 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove: (a) The accused committed house trespass as defined in section 440 2IPC having made precaution to conceal such house response from some person, having the right to exclude or eject him, there from; (b) The accused deed, so with the purpose of committing an offence, which is under the law punishable with imprisonment; (c) That such imprisonment maybe either simple or rigourous, but for a term which may extend to 3 years OR the prosecution must prove; (a) The accused committed House breaking as defined in section 445 of IPC; (b) That the accused did so with the purpose of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment of either description; and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 (c) That such imprisonment must be for a term which may extend to 3 years OR with the purpose of committing theft. 11. To prove the guilt of the accused under section 380 of IPC prosecution has to prove the following essential ngredients: i) That the accused committed theft; ii) That such theft was committed in any Building, tent or vessel; and iii) But such building, tent or whistle was used as a human dwelling, are used for the custody of property. 12. In the case on hand, it is the case of the prosecution that on 23rd March, 2016 at 12:30 pm, the accused entered into the pump house situate in RS No.70/2 of Medehalli by breaking open the lock and committed theft of two old iron pipes of 10 feet length each and tried to transport the same in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2997. On careful examination of the entire material on record, the prosecution, the same reveals that the prosecution has not produced any document to show that there is a pump-house - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 situated in RS No.70/2 of Medihalli. It is an admitted fact that the said land belongs to the younger brother of PW1- Prabhakara. PW1-Prabhakara has not deposed in his evidence that the land bearing RS No.70/2 two of Medehalli belong to his younger brother. However, during the course of cross- examination, he has admitted that the land is standing in the name of his father Revanna. The Investigating officer has not produced the RTC extract pertaining to the said land. Even the investigating officer has not explained as to non-production of the material piece of evidence that is RTC extract of the subject land. Exhibit 4-spot mahazar does not reveal as to who is the owner of the subject land. It is admitted by PW1 that Photos- Exhibits P5 & P6 do not indicate as to broke-open of the lock of pump house. The investigating officer has clearly admitted that he has not seized the padlock and even he has not explained anything about this in the spot mahazar. In the absence of these material pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that there are sufficient materials to attract the alleged commission of offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. Accordingly prosecution has failed to place sufficient material to prove the guilt of the accused under the said Sections. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 13. With regard to the seizure of material object MO1 i.e. two old iron pipes is concerned, Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that public have caught the accused red-handed while transporting to iron pipes in an auto rickshaw and produced them before the SHO and on the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer registered case against accused and submitted FIR to the Court. Thereafter, conducted spot and seizure mahazar as per Exhibit P2, and took photos Exhibit P3, before seizure of autorickshaw and pipes. In this regard, prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed in their evidence that accused were caught red handed along with two iron pipes which was being transported in an autorickshaw. The evidence of prosecution witnesses establish that the public have caught red-handed the accused. The accused have failed to give any explanation as to the possession of two iron pipes with them. Under the circumstance, in view of Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a man, who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods, knowing them to be stolen, unless he has an account for his possession. In the case on hand, the accused have not placed any material to discard the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 evidence as to seizure of pipes from them at the relevant point of time. Evidence placed by the prosecution establishes that the accused have committed theft of two iron pipes which attracts the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. Considering the evidence placed before this court, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for commission of offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. PF No.48/16 dated 23rd March, 2016 reveals that worth of old pipes is approximately Rs.1,500/-. Considering the value of the property, nature and gravity of the offence, it is just and proper to impose sentence for eleven days which is already undergone by the accused and fine of Rs.3,000/-, already remitted by the accused. 14. In the result, I proceed to pause the following: O R D E R i) The revision petition is partly allowed; ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.11.2017 passed in CC.No.1022/2016 on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Chitradurga, which is confirmed by the I Addl. District and Session - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28733 CRL.RP No. 869 of 2018 Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.A.No.85/2017 dated 02.05.2018, is modified as under; a) The accused No.2/revision petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC; b) The accused No.2/revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code; c) Accused No.2/revision petitioner was in judicial custody for eleven days after his arrest. Hence, the accused is sentenced for a period of eleven days with fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. The amount of Rs.3,000/- already remitted by the accused. Out of this amount, as per the order of trial Court, Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- shall be remitted to the Government. iii) Registry shall send the trial court records along with the copy of this Order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23