Supreme Court restores acquittal in bond theft case: Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding entries in Pahani (land records) concerning Sy. Nos. 188, 189, and 190. This dispute was pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. During the proceedings, a settlement was allegedly reached between the parties. This settlement was documented on a bond paper worth Rs. 100 and filed in the court.

The prosecution alleged that on July 16, 2010, at 12:00 PM, the accused, Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain, took the bond from the court file without permission. Later, at 4:00 PM on the same day, he returned to the Assistant Commissioner’s office. When questioned, he apologized and promised to return the bond the next day. However, he failed to do so. Consequently, on July 18, 2010, at 7:00 PM, a first information report (FIR) was lodged, leading to the initiation of CC No. 402 of 2010.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment. Additionally, he was convicted under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, receiving nine months of simple imprisonment.

The accused then appealed to the Session Judge, Yadgiri, who overturned the trial court’s decision on March 24, 2016, acquitting the accused. The State of Karnataka filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which set aside the acquittal and remanded the case back to the Appellate Court. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• ✓ **Section 379, Indian Penal Code, 1860**: This section defines the offense of theft and prescribes punishment for it.
• ✓ **Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860**: This section deals with the offense of causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the accused stole the bond paper, which contained a settlement agreement between three parties. They relied on the testimony of prosecution witnesses (PW2 to PW6) and a statement allegedly made by the accused to the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The prosecution contended that the accused confessed to taking the bond, tearing it, and throwing it into the river.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a valid settlement agreement or the accused’s involvement in its theft. The defense highlighted that the prosecution did not examine the other two parties to the alleged agreement, nor did they produce the original file of the Assistant Commissioner to prove the signing of the order sheet.

The Appellate Court also noted that the trial court had only considered the examination-in-chief of the witnesses and had not considered the cross-examination. The Appellate Court also noted that the statement made by the accused to the I.O., was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as no recovery was made under Section 27 of the same Act.

The High Court, in its revision, held that the Session Court had erred in not appreciating the material on record. The High Court noted that the order sheet of the Assistant Commissioner showed that there was a move for settlement between the parties and that they had affixed their signatures to that effect. Thus, the High Court held that the filing of the agreement for settlement could not be disputed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the judgments of the trial court, the Appellate Court, and the High Court. The Court noted that the Appellate Court had thoroughly considered all the evidence on record, including both oral and documentary evidence. The Court agreed with the Appellate Court that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the bond and the theft.

The Supreme Court noted that the Appellate Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining the other two parties to the alleged agreement. The Court also agreed with the Appellate Court that the statement made by the accused to the I.O. was inadmissible in evidence.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s observation that the Appellate Court had not looked into the materials available on record was not factually correct. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court had given sufficient reasoning for the acquittal of the accused and that the High Court had erred in setting aside the acquittal order on insufficient grounds.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The observation of the High Court that Appellate Court had not looked into the materials available on record is not factually correct. The Appellate Court has thoroughly considered each and every material available on record.”

“We are of the view that the Appellate Court has given sufficient reasoning for acquittal of the accused and the High Court has erred in setting aside the acquittal order on insufficient grounds.”

“We are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the order of acquittal recorded by the Appellate Court.”

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the prosecution did not establish the existence of the bond paper or the alleged settlement. The non-examination of key witnesses and the inadmissibility of the accused’s statement to the I.O. were also significant factors. The Court also considered the fact that the Appellate Court had thoroughly considered all the evidence and had given sufficient reasoning for the acquittal.

The ratio of fact to law in the Supreme Court’s decision is as follows:

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The prosecution must establish all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
• ✓ Failure to examine key witnesses can lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
• ✓ Statements made to police officers are not always admissible in evidence, especially if they do not lead to a recovery of evidence.
• ✓ Appellate courts should not overturn acquittals unless there are compelling reasons and a clear error in the lower court’s decision.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the acquittal by the Appellate Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an acquittal by an appellate court should not be overturned by a revisional court unless there are compelling reasons and clear errors in the appellate court’s decision. This case reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment also highlights the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the acquittal granted by the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of thorough evidence and proper procedure in criminal trials. The judgment underscores that acquittals should not be overturned lightly and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.