Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court's acquittal was justified and the High Court's order setting it aside was erroneous.

Summary

The dispute involved a settlement recorded on a bond paper of Rs.100 filed with the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri. The accused, Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain, was alleged to have taken the bond paper from the court file on 16 July 2010, leading to an FIR and his conviction under Section 379 IPC by the trial court. On appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted him, finding that the existence of the bond was not sufficiently proved and that the accused's statement (Exhibit P6) was inadmissible under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. The State filed a revision, and the Karnataka High Court set aside the acquittal, holding that the Sessions Court had not properly considered the material on record. The Supreme Court examined the trial, appellate, and High Court findings, concluding that the Sessions Court had duly considered all evidence, including adverse inferences against the prosecution, and that the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Sessions Court's order of acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was vacated.

Issues considered

The existence and authenticity of the settlement bond paper and whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The admissibility of the accused's voluntary statement (Exhibit P6) under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the Sessions Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the evidence on record.
Whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Court's acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 25, s. 26, s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 379

Subjects

theftsettlement agreementbond paperevidence admissibilityIndian Evidence Actacquittalrevision petitioncriminal appeal

Judgment

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 552

A RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of20J 7)
B 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 ofAppellate 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.
Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta Patil, S-legal Associates, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, Advs. for
the Respondent.
H
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 c
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
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 E
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
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 river. The Magistrate had
relied on the aforesaid evidence given by the I. 0. and had observed that
evidence of LO. has proved the offence committed by the accused.
B
5. The Appellate Coi.trt has recorded acquittal after consideration
of the entire oral and documentary evidence on the record. The Appellate
Court has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence on
record, the signing of the bond is not sufficiently proved, hence the
question of snatching away by the accused does not arise. The Appellate
c Court has drawn adverse inference for not recording the statement of
other two persons, alleged to have signed the bond paper. The I.O. neither
.recorded the statement of other two parties to the settlement nor they
were produced in evidence before the Court. Hence sufficient doubt
was created regarding existence of such bond, which was correctly
D relied by the Appellate Court.
~ .. 6. The Appellate Court has also rightly ob:;erved that the trial court
has considered only the examination-in-chief of witnesses without
adverting to the cross-examination. The Appellate Court has also drawn
adverse inference on the reason that I.O. did not request the trial court
E . to summon the original file of Assistant Commissioner to prove the fact
of signing the order sheet by the accused and other persons. Non-
examination of the parties concerned raise serious doubt as to the
existence of the settlement. EXh.P6 was hit by provisions of Sections
25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, by which I.ff tried to prove that
accused himself voluntarily made a statement of incidence of crime.
F The statement was inadmissible in evidence since no recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was claimed.
7. The High Court in exercise of its rcvisional jurisdiction has
recorded following reasons for setting aside the Appellate Court's order:-
)

G (i) Session Court committed grave error by adopting different
line of direction by not appreciating the material available
on record.
(ii) The findings of Session I udge in holding that filing of such
document before Assistant Commissioner is not established
is contrary to the material available on record.
H
RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 555 ·
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ]

In Para 6 of the Judgment, the High Court has made following A
observations:-
"After careful consideration of j udgmcnt impugned and as well
as judgment rendered in C.C. No.1402/2010, it is clearly seen
that learned Sessions Comi has taken the matter on a totally
different direction without looking int? order sheet dated B
12.07.2010 maintained by Assistant Commissioner in the
proceeding, which was pending before him wherein, it is clearly
seen that there is recording by Assistant Commissioner to the
effect that· there was a move for settlement between
Chandrashckar, Rajshekar C.K. Jain and Suresh Kumar C.K.
Jain and further noting that they have affixed their signature on c ''-..
the order sheet to the said effect. If that is accepted, then filing
of agreement for settlement cannot be disputed. So also, theft
of said document by respondent herein as alleged in the complaint
. filed against him which is recovered from the police against l!im
in C.C. No.402/2010." D
8. We have looked into the judgment of the trial court andAppclJate
Court and the materials on record.
~--' 9. The observation of the High Court thaJ-Appellate Court had not
looked into the materials available on recorg is not factually correct.
The Appellate Court has thoroughly considered each and every material E
available on record. In Para 14 of the judgment, issues which have arisen
before the Appellate Court has been noticed and Issue Nos. 1 to 3 were
taken together. The Appellate Court has considered documentary
evidence as welJ as the oral evidence, which was lead in tl1e case. Exh.P3,
on which much reliance was placed by prosecution did not prove the F
guilt. The Appellate Court has observed that I.O. should have enquired
with the opponent of the accused who were said to be present on the
date of production of the-said alleged agreement bond and said to have
signed the ~amc before the_Assistant Commissioner. Following
' observations have been made by the Appellate Court:-
G
" ...... The I.O. should have enquired with the oppQn,ent of the
accused who said to were present on the date of production of
the said alleged agreement bond before the said Assistant
Commissioner. But the 1.0. has not recorded it. Therefore, this
fact lec'lds to draw an adverse inference against the case of the
H
/

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence is deserves to be set aside."
10. The evidence of PW2 to PW6 on which much reliance was
placed by prosecution has also been considered in detail by the Appellate
Court. Other circumstances of the case that it is not believable that
B accused after snatching the bond will again come back at 4.00 PM and
not taking any action when accused had come back at 4.00 PM, adverse
inference was rightly drawn against the prosecution. The delay caused
in filing the complaint, which is more than two days after the incident
has also been relied by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court did not
commit any error in not relying on Exh.P6 which was alleged to be
C voluntary statement made by the accused, not being admissible in
evidence.
11. 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. The observation
D of the High Court that Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the
materials available on record is not factually correct. We arc 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.
E 12. In result, the appeal is allowed.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.