Bangalore District Court
State By Vijayanagara Police Station vs No: 1. Sheshadri on 10 March, 2022
S.C.No.1641/2019
KABC010335162019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 10 th day of March, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1641/2019
COMPLAINANT:- State by Vijayanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED NO: 1. Sheshadri,
S/o. Murugan,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at. Behind Eshwari School,
Hanumnthappa Chowltry Road,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru .
S.C.No.1641/2019
2. Raghu @ Rohith,,
S/o. Lokesh,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Near Ganesha Temple,
Krishna Fashion Road,
23rd Cross, Ittamadu Main Road,
Ittamadu, Bengaluru city.
(Accused No.3, 4, 5 are absconding)
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.12.2016
2. Date of report of offence : 16.12.2016
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : Produced under body
warrant
4. Name of the complainant : Gaurav C.S.
5. Date of recording evidence : 19.01.2021
6. Date of closing evidence : 08.12.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.395, 397
R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.,
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/s.392 R/w.Sec.34
of I.P.C. is proved against
Accused No.1 & 2
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. Sudheendra Prasad
Adv. for accused
S.C.No.1641/2019
JUDGMENT
In the present case accused No.1 and 2 stands charged for offences punishable U/s.395, 397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.648/2016 of Vijayanagara police station.
2. There are no undisputed facts in this case.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2016 midnight at 1.00 p.m., near Sanjeeveshwara Temple situated at Moodalapalya within the jurisdiction of Vijayanagara police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 2 and other accused came on Deo Honda Activa vehicles wrongfully restrained Cw.1/Gaurav in order to commit robbery and snatched his Samsung mobile phone worth Rs.21,000/- (twenty one thousand) thereby committed offences punishable U/s.395, 397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
4. Charge being read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During personal examination U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 have denied all incriminating circumstances. Accused No.1 submitted that respondent police picked them from their house, detained them 18 days in police station falsely implicated him along with vehicle.
S.C.No.1641/2019
6. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused as per Section 234 of Cr.P.C.
7. Now, the points arising for determination are follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 14.11.2016 midnight at 1.00 p.m., near Sanjeeveshwara Temple situated at Moodalapalya within the jurisdiction of Vijayanagara police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 2 and other accused wrongfully restrained Cw.1/Gaurav in order to commit robbery and snatched his Samsung mobile phone worth of Rs.21,000/-(twenty one thousand) thereby committed offences punishable U/s.395, 397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. What Order ?
8. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative that offence U/s.392 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. is proved Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 :-Reasons for determination:- Cardinal principle of the criminal trial is that the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, till guilty is proved. As per Section 102 of Indian S.C.No.1641/2019 Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the charges framed against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts is on the prosecution. To determine whether the prosecution succeeded to discharge burden of proof casts U/s.102 of Indian Evidence Act, it is just and necessary to assess evidence adduced, documents produced on behalf of the prosecution. To establish the case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got exhibited 15 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.
10. Learned advocate for accused submitted that ingredients required to prove offences punishable U/s.395 and 397 of I.P.C. and material available on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and hence prayed to acquit the accused.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that evidence adduced by witnesses examined by the prosecution side established case against the accused and hence prayed to convict the accused.
12. Under the light of the arguments submitted by both side, this court shall evaluate the evidence, materials available on record to assess whether prosecution side succeeded to prove beyond all S.C.No.1641/2019 reasonable doubt, the ingredients of Sec.395 and 397 of I.P.C. committed by the accused.
13. In the case of robbery or dacoity essential ingredient required to be proved are firstly robbery or dacoity is committed. Secondly, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity offenders used any deadly weapon or causes greivious hurt to any person or attempt to cause death or greivious hurt to any person. Ingredients U/s.397 of I.P.C. is aggravated form of the offence punishable U/s.392 of I.P.C. Section 397 of I.P.C. would attract only when in the process of commission of robbery or dacoity, accused used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or cause attempt to commit death or greviouos hurt at the time of commission of robbery or dacoity. Therefore, it is just and necessary to assess whether prosecution succeeded to prove the commission of robbery or dacoity by the accused persons. To assess this fact in issue, it is just and necessary to consider evidence produced by the prosecution side evidence.
14. Cw.1/ Gaurav, complainant is examined as Pw.1. he is the victim of robbery. In his evidence, Pw.1 has stated in respect of the act of snatching his mobile phone, ignition key of his vehicle. Pw.1 identified his complaint at Ex.P.1 along with his signature on S.C.No.1641/2019 Ex.P.1 at Ex.P.1(a). Pw.1 identified Ex.P.2/spot panchanama conducted by the police on the spot shown by him. Pw.1 further deposed that on 18.12.2016 Hanumanthanagara police station called him and had shown stolen phone along with key of his two wheeler. Pw.1 identified accused No.1 and 2 produced through V.C. Pw.1 identified his mobile phone and ignition key of his two wheeler through Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4/photographs. Pw.1 stands unrebutted during cross-examination. Cw.2/Adhesh, one of the panch witness for Ex.P.2/spot panchanama is examined as Pw.2. Pw.2 identified his signature on Ex.P.2/panchanama.
15. Cw.9/Ganesh is examined as Pw.3. Pw.3 is police head constable who secured the presence of absconded accused Shesha, Raghu, Amavase, Manja. In his evidence, Pw.3 has deposed that on 17.12.2016 he collected information, traced the accused Shesha @ Sheshadrim near Srinagara bus stand and produced along with his laptop bag and two wheeler before police inspector. Pw.3 identified accused No.1/Sheshadri produced through V.C. Pw.3 stands unrebutted in the cross-examination.
16. Cw.13/ H.Krishnamurthy Dy.S.P. is examined as Pw.4. In his evidence Pw.4 has deposed that on 16.2.2016 night at 9.30 p.m., Cw.1 approached the police station, lodged complaint at Ex.P.1. He registered F.I.R. at Ex.P.6. He prepared spot S.C.No.1641/2019 panchanama as per Ex.P.2. On 1.2.2017 he received documents relating to Cr.No.334/2016 of Hanumanthanagara police station. Pw.4 identified Ex.P.7/complaint, Ex.P.8/ F.I.R., Ex.P.9/ property form, Ex.P.10/ seizure mahazar, Ex.P.11/ P.F., Ex.P.12/ seizure mahazar prepared in the said Cr.No.334/2016. Pw.4 further deposed that mobile phone, ignition key of two wheeler of Cw.1 was seized by Hanumanthanagara police station in their Cr.No.334/2016. After taking indemnity bond from the complainant at Ex.P.13, he handed over mobile phone and ignition key of the two wheeler to the complainant. Pw.4 identified photographs at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. After complation of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Pw.4 stands unrebutted during the cross- examination.
17. Cw.12/Dilipkumar K.H. police inspector is examined as Pw.5. Pw.5 is the then police inspector at Hanumanthanagara police station. On 27.10.2016 A.S.I. Govindappa and other staff arrested accused Shekhar, Harish, Sanjay and seized deadly weapons from their possession under the cover of panchanama and submitted report. A case for offences punishable U/s.399 and 402 of I.P.C. came to be registered at Cr.No.334/2016. Pw.5 identified Ex.P.7/complaint, and Ex.P.8/ F.I.R. registered in that case. Accused were arrested, interrogated and their voluntary statements get S.C.No.1641/2019 recorded. On 15.12.2016 witness Arun produced Samsung mobile phone said to be given by accused No.1/ Shesha under the cover of Ex.P.10/ panchana. He seized the said mobile phone reported to the court under P.F.No.134/2016 at Ex.P.9. ON 17.12.2016 accused Shesha @ Sheshadri is produced along with his Honda Deo two wheeler by police staff Ganesh and Naveen. He arrested, interrogated and recorded his voluntary. Accused No.1/Shesha @ Sheshadri had given information in his voluntary statement in respect of commission of mobile snatching and snatching of ignition key of two wheeler at Moodalapalya Road of Vijaya Nagara. Accused No.1 further admitted handing over of Samsung mobile phone to Arun and retaining the ignition key of the two wheeler. He produced emigration key of two wheeler Deo Honda Activa, Dell Laptop, Samsung mobile, one blue colour leather bag, dragger. He seized those articles in the presence of witnesses under the cover of panchanama Ex.P.12 . Pw.5 identified key and mobile phone shown on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4/photographs. On 18.12.2016 he produced accused before the court, took him to the police custody until 22.12.2016 for further investigation. On the same day, he summoned the complainant to identify the accused as well as seized articles. He recorded statement of the complainant after identification of the accused and stolen articles. Pw.5 identified accused No.1 produced before the court through V.C. On S.C.No.1641/2019 15.12.2016 he released Samsung mobile phone produced by witness Arun to the interim custody of the complainant by taking Ex.P.13/ Indemnity bond from the complainant .
18. Pw.5 further deposed that on 06.1.2017 H.C. Krishna produced accused No.2/Raghu with Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-05-JU-3709. He arrested accused No.2/Raghu, interrogated and recorded his voluntary statement. He produced the accused before the court and identified him produced through VC. He sent relevant documents relating to Cr.No.648/2016 registered at Vijayanagara police station. Pw.5 identified Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15. Pw.5 stands unrebutted during the cross- examination.
19. Cw.10/Krishna S. is examined as Pw.6. In his evidence Pw.6 has deposed that on 6.1.2017 he was deputed to secure accused Shesha, Raghu, Amavase, Manja. Along with P.C.Ganesh and Naveen, he secured the presence of accused Raghu near Kamakya Talkies, produced him before the Police Inspector. Pw.6 deposed that he can identify accused No.2 who is in judicial custody. Advocate for accused submitted no objection of identify the accused. Pw.6 stands unrebutted during the cross-examination.
S.C.No.1641/2019
20. Complaint, spot mahazar, photos, report, F.I.R. complaint, property form seizure mahazar, property form seizure mahazar, indemnity bond, requisition, report got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Pw.1 victim complainant explained the act of robbery committed by the accused persons. Pw.1 identified accused No.1 and 2 and identified his stolen mobile phone. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 is corroborated by he evidence adduced by police staff who secured presence of accused person and the Investigating Officer who seized stolen mobile phone of the complainant. Ingredients required to be proved for offences charged against the accused U/s.395 and 397 of I.P.C. are that there must be robbery committed by 5 or more persons by using deadly weapons. Evidence adduced by complainant Pw.1 made it clear that an incident of robbery had taken place. Pw.1 identified accused No.1 and 2, who committed robbery. There is no allegation in respect of using deadly weapons by accused persons either in the complaint Ex.P.1 or in the evidence adduced by Pw.1 and Pw.2. Therefore, ingredients of Section 397 of I.P.C. would not attract against the accused No.1 and
2. So far as offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C. is concerned, even though name of 5 accused persons are cited in the charge sheet, accused No.3 to 5 are shown as absconded. Persons brought before the court for trial is only two accused persons. Pw.1 S.C.No.1641/2019 deposed and identified only against accused No.1 and 2. Therefore, ingredients of Section 395 of I.P.C., is not proved.
21. Defence set up by the accused during recording charge and recording their statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is that they are not at all involved in the commission of offence alleged against them. According to accused No.1/ Sheshadri, police called them from their home, detained 18 days at police station, by impleading the vehicle, a false case is registered against them. Perusing the evidence adduced by Pw.1/Gourav. No such admissions are elicited in the cross-examination to substantiate the defence set up by the accused. Further no enimity or ill-will against these accused No.1 and 2 is forthcoming in the entire evidence of Pw.1. There is no reason of any nature is forthcoming for Pw.1 to give false evidence against these accused persons, because Pw.1 is totally stranger to the accused No.1 and 2. No material is forthcoming to presume that in order to help the police to file false case against accused No.1 and 2, Pw.1 lodged false complaint as per Ex.P.1 and deposed before the court against accused No.1 and 2. So far as evidence adduced by Pw.3/Ganesh H.C., Pw.4/H.Krishnamurthy, Dy.S.P., Pw.5/ Dilip Kumar, police inspector, Pw.6/ Krishna A.S.I. is concerned, no such admissions are elicited in the cross-examination of these witlessness to substantiate the allegations that a false case is foist against accused No.1 and 2.
S.C.No.1641/2019
22. As discussed above, ingredients required to be proved in the offence like robbery, there shall be either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery-Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
23. In this case, denial of the case of the prosecution as false, is the only defence set up by the accused. U/s.101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that, burden of proof lies on that person. In this case prosecution substantially proves the very story it alleges against accused persons. Prosecution proved the allegation made against accused persons in the charge framed against them relating to commission of offence of robbery, beyond all reasonable doubts.
S.C.No.1641/2019
24. So far as using deadly weapons or causing grevious hurt to any person or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person is concerned, evidence and material is not available in the prosecution side evidence. No such deadly weapon is recovered by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation. Pw.1 didn't sustained any type of injury. No wound certificate is produced by the investigating agency. Argument submitted on behalf of prosecution is that forcible snatching mobile phone itself is an attempt to cause grievious hurt on the victim. In the absence of any material, evidence to corroborate such argument, it is difficult to accept the version of the prosecution that, an offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. had taken place. Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that, accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/s.392 of I.P.C.
25. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 14.11.2016 midnight at 1.00 p.m., near Sanjeeveshwara Temple situated at Moodalapalya within the jurisdiction of Vijayanagara police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained Cw.1/Gaurav in order to commit robbery and snatched his Samsung mobile phone worth of Rs.21,000/- (twenty one thousand) thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed S.C.No.1641/2019 offence punishable U/s.392 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. Hence point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
26. POINT NO.2 In view of the above findings on point No.1, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 10th day of March 2022.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.1641/2019 11.03.2022 Further Order on imposing sentence Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court has arrived for the conclusion not to proceed in accordance with provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or provisions U/s.3, 4 and 6 of P.O.Act.
Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.1/Sheshadri submitted that a false case is foist against him. He has to look after his age old mother, his wife and a child. He is the only bread winner for his family. Accused No.2/ Raghu @ Rohith submitted that he has to look after his age old parents. He is the sole male earning member of his family. Since 4 years he is in judicial custody. He is nothing to do with this case. For the said reasons, accused No.1 and 2 have prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Sri Sudheendra Prasad Advocate for accused No.1 No.2 submitted that accused No.1 and 2 are young aged first offenders. Therefore, prayed that minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.1 and 2.
S.C.No.1641/2019 Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused No.1 and 2.
Punishment for robbery U/s.392 of I.P.C. prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Accused No.1 and 2 are youth. No records are available to show that, accused No.1 and 2 are previously convicted for similar type of offences. Accused No.1 and 2 have sumitted that they are the only bread winners for their families. Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, leniency may be shown while imposing sentence on accused No.1 and 2.
No doubt that, the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 is of serious nature. Impact of this type of offence on public is more. Deterrent theory of punishment is suitable to prevent accused persons from continuing with such type of offences. Further imposing rigorous imprisonment with fine is helpful to prevent other offenders from commission of similar type of offences. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months. Considering the fact that S.C.No.1641/2019 accused No.1 and 2 already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. three months for the offence punishable U/s.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Order of interim custody granting Mobile phone and key to Pw.1 stands confirmed.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 and 2 forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bonds and their surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
S.C.No.1641/2019 Period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11 th day of March 2022.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Gourav
Pw.2 Aadesh
Pw.3 Ganesh
Pw.4 H.Krishnamurthy
Pw.5 Dilip Kumar K.H.
Pw.6 Krishna S.
S.C.No.1641/2019
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.2 Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 Photos
Ex.P.5 Report
Ex.P.6 F.I.R.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.7 Copy of complaint
Ex.P.8 Copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.9 Property Form No.134/2016
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.10 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.11 Property Form No.153/2016
Ex.P.12 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.13 Indemnity Bond
Ex.P.14 Requisition
Ex.P.15 Report
S.C.No.1641/2019
IV.For Defence side:-
-Nil-
V. List of material objects marked:-
-Nil-
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY
S.C.No.1641/2019
10.03.2022
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(vide separate judgment)
ORDER
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
To hear regarding sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.1641/2019 11.03.2022 Further Order on imposing sentence Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court has arrived for the conclusion not to proceed in accordance with provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or provisions U/s.3, 4 and 6 of P.O.Act.
Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.1/Sheshadri submitted that a false case is foist against him. He has to look after his age old mother, his wife and a child. He is the only bread winner for his family. Accused No.2/ Raghu @ Rohith submitted that he has to look after his age old parents. He is the sole male earning member of his family. Since 4 years he is in judicial custody. He is nothing to do with this case. For the said reasons, accused No.1 and 2 have prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Sri Sudheendra Prasad Advocate for accused No.1 No.2 submitted that accused No.1 and 2 are young aged first offenders. Therefore, prayed that minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.1 and 2.
S.C.No.1641/2019 Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused No.1 and 2.
Punishment for robbery U/s.392 of I.P.C. prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Accused No.1 and 2 are youth. No records are available to show that, accused No.1 and 2 are previously convicted for similar type of offences. Accused No.1 and 2 have submitted that they are the only bread winners for their families. Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, leniency may be shown while imposing sentence on accused No.1 and 2.
No doubt that, the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 is of serious nature. Impact of this type of offence on public is more. Deterrent theory of punishment is suitable to prevent accused persons from continuing with such type of offences. Further imposing rigorous imprisonment with fine is helpful to prevent other offenders from commission of similar type of offences. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo S.I. for 3 months. Considering the fact that S.C.No.1641/2019 accused No.1 and 2 already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. three months for the offence punishable U/s.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Order of interim custody granting Mobile phone and key to Pw.1 stands confirmed.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 and 2 forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bonds and their surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
S.C.No.1641/2019 Period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.