Conviction for Theft of Public Electricity Infrastructure Upheld; Hostile Witnesses Won’t Dismantle Case Where Recovery Is Proven: Karnataka High Court

"Recovery at Accused’s Instance Is the Best Piece of Evidence When Panch Witnesses Turn Hostile,” In a recent judgment Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal , presided by Justice Venkatesh Naik T, upheld the conviction of seven accused persons involved in organised theft of 800 metres of electric copper wire from a 66 K.V. transmission line. The Court, while maintaining the conviction under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 IPC, modified the sentence by granting the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., as the accused had already undergone nearly the full sentence during trial custody.

The judgment reiterates an important principle in criminal jurisprudence: the prosecution case cannot collapse merely because panch witnesses turn hostile, if the recovery and seizure of stolen property is otherwise proven through credible and official witnesses.

“Where Recovery Is Established by Credible Official Witnesses, Hostility of Panchas Is Not Fatal,” Rules High Court

On the night of 19 September 2010, a power interruption was reported on the Beluru 66 K.V. electricity line. A field inspection revealed theft of nearly 800 meters of copper conductor, valued at over ₹1 lakh. A complaint was lodged the following morning by the Junior Engineer of KPTCL, which led to registration of an FIR and eventual arrest of the accused on 25 September 2010.

Following an extensive trial in Special Case No.118/2010, the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan had convicted the accused for the dual offences under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC, sentencing them to two years of simple imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, the accused filed separate criminal appeals.

The High Court, however, found no infirmity in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence, particularly the testimony of the complainant (PW1), Assistant Lineman (PW4), and Investigating Officer (PW2), which it held as cogent, coherent, and materially unshaken during cross-examination.

Prosecution Must Prove “Dishonest Intention” and “Lack of Authorisation” in Electricity Theft Cases: High Court Reiterates Ingredients of Section 136 Electricity Act

While affirming the legal foundation of the conviction under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, the Court underlined the essential ingredients required to establish the offence:

“The prosecution must prove that the accused had dishonest intention, committed unauthorised removal of electric property, and that the said property belonged to a licensed utility provider,” observed Justice Naik.

In this case, the prosecution led consistent evidence to show:

• Interruption in power supply due to theft;
• Recovery of 10 bundles of copper wire (358 kgs) from a Tata Sumo vehicle traced to the accused;
• Seizure of tools like cutting pliers and axe-saw blades;
• Voluntary statements leading to further recovery of ingots from a scrap dealer;
• Photographs and mahazars corroborating the scene and recovery.

Despite some of the independent witnesses (PWs 6 to 8) turning hostile during trial, the Court held that the recovery at the accused’s instance, supported by official witnesses and documentary evidence, fulfilled the evidentiary threshold beyond reasonable doubt.

“The hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses,” said the Court, citing paragraphs 15–20 of the judgment.

Probation of Offenders Act Denied in Cases Involving Theft of Public Utility Assets

Another key legal point examined was the inapplicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The accused had sought benefit under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, but the Court categorically declined, stating:

“Considering the nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure, the benefit of probation cannot be extended,” the Court ruled in para 5 of the judgment.

Set-Off Under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Allowed as Accused Had Undergone 1 Year, 11 Months, 18 Days in Custody

While affirming the conviction, the Court showed leniency in sentencing. Since the accused were in custody from 25 September 2010 to 13 September 2012, they had already served 1 year, 11 months, and 18 days of the two-year sentence. Noting that only 12 days remained, the Court held it would serve no useful purpose to remand them back to custody.

Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974, the High Court ruled:

“As the accused have fulfilled the requirements laid down under Section 428 Cr.P.C., the sentence is modified by granting them set-off for the period already undergone.”

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeals, confirmed the conviction, modified the sentence, and ordered the appellants to be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds, if any, were ordered to be cancelled.

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Shamiulla & Ors. v. State of Karnataka affirms the legal robustness of recovery-based evidence, even in the absence of support from independent panch witnesses. The judgment reinforces that public utility theft is to be treated with gravity and cannot be trivialised through procedural loopholes. However, it also highlights the judiciary’s balanced approach in sentencing by granting set-off benefits under procedural law when equity and justice so demand.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025