RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 09-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 552 
RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of20J 7) 
OCTOBER 09, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.379 - Theft - Settlement arrived at 
between the parties, with regard to a dispute, which was reduced in 
C writing on a bond paper and filed in the Court - Appellant-accused 
alleged to have stolen the said bond-paper from the file - Appellant 
convicted by trial court - Appeal by appellant before the Sessions 
Judge, allowed - Revision petition filed by the State before High 
Court was allowed holding that Appellate Court did not look into 
the materials available on record - On appeal, held: In the present 
D 
case, the Sessions Judge (Appellate Court) on the basis of evidence 
on record held that the existence of bond in question was not 
sufficiently proved. - Further, it gave sufficient reasoning for 
acquitting the accused - High Court erred in setting aside the said 
acquittal order on insufficient grounds - Order of High Court is set 
E aside and that of Appellate Court acquitting the appellant is restored. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 26 - Applicability of -
investigating Officer (JO) relying on Exh.P6, which was the statement 
made by appellant-accused, tried to prove that appellant voluntarily 
made the said statement about incidence of crime - Held: Exh. P6 
F 
was hit by ss.25 and 26 and was inadmissible in evidence since no 
·recovery was made u/s.27. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1833 of2017 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2016 of the High Court 
G ofKarnataka Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Petition No. 200053 of2016. 
H 
Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta Patil, S-legal Associates, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
552 
RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
553 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. l. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.11.2016 
of High Court of Karnataka by which the Criminal Revision Petition 
filed by the State of Karnataka against order of acquittal recorded by 
the Session Judge has been set aside and the case remanded to the 
B 
Appellate Court. 
3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the record arc:-· 
There was a dispute regarding entries in Pahani with reference 
to Sy. Nos. 188, 189 and 190, which was pending before the 
AsSoistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. In the proceedings before the 
Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri, it is alleged that a settlement 
has arrived between the parties, which was reduced in writing 
c 
on a bond paper of value ofR~. l 00/- and filed in the Court. The 
allegation against the accused appellant is that on 16.07.2010 at 
12.00 Noon, he took away the bond from the file without D 
permission. At 4.00 PM on the same day, accused again came 
to the Office of Assistant Commissioner and when enquired, he 
apologized and assured to return the bond on the next day. 
However, on the next day, accused did not come to the Office of 
Assistant Commissioner. Hence on 18.07.2010 at about 7.00 
PM, PW2 lodgcd a first information report, on the basis of which 
CC No. 402 of2010 was initiated. The prosecution produced 
PW 1 to PW7 and document Exhs. 1 to 6. Statement of accused 
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P. C. The trial court convicted 
E 
the accused under Section 379 of LP.C. for one y~ar simple 
imprisonment and nine months simple imprisonment for offence 
F 
punishable under Section 20 I ofl.P. C. 
Appeal was filed before the Session Judge, Yadgiri. Session 
Judge vide itsjudgmentandorderdated 24.03.2016 allowed the 
appeal and set aside the conviction acquitting the accu.scd against 
which revision was filed by the State, which revision has been 
G 
allowed and judgment ofacquittal has been set aside remanding 
the case to the Appellate Court for reconsideration. Aggrieved 
by the said judgment, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 
4. The Magistrate relying on prosecution witnesses PW2 to PW6 
found accused guilty of stealing the bond paper, on which settlement 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 
,. 
A arµong three parties was recorded. The accused has denied recording 
of settlement among the parties. The I.O. in his statemeht has stated 
that accused has voluntarily made the statement before him that he took 
away the bond, tore it and throwij it in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.