Bangalore District Court
State By Puttenahalli Police Station vs Velu on 13 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 13th day of JULY 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.13142/2017
Complainant : State by Puttenahalli Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused : Velu,
S/o Late. Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.390, 1st Cross Road,
1st Main Road, Ambedkar Nagar,
Old Biyyappanahalli, Bengaluru.
(Represented by SKY Associates)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Puttenahalli Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 11/11/2014 in between 5.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m. in the night, accused committed theft of gold ornaments 2 C.C. No.13142/2017 weighing about 50 grams worth Rs.40,000/- which was kept in the almera of the house of C.W. 1 Sri. Hanumantha Rao, bearing No.6, situated at 4th Cross Road, Om Shiva Shakthi Nagar, Chunchaghatta Main Road, within the limits of J.P. Nagar Police Station and thereby committed aforesaid offence. Therefore, C.W.1 Sri. Hanumantha Rao has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against accused. Thereafter, I.O.
visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar as well as seizure mahazar, seized item No.23 to 27 involved in this case and subjected the same under P.F. No.98/2015, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
3. The accused is in judicial custody and he is represented through his counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec. 380 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
3 C.C. No.13142/2017
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. Though, the prosecution in order to prove its case has cited as many as 13 witnesses, except C.W. 1, 5, 6 and 7 none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 2 to 4, 11 to 13 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, the charge is framed in the year 2017 and till now C.W. 2 to 4, 11 to 13 have been secured and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Therefore, they have been discharged from deposing evidence.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him and he has not chosen to lead his side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments. 4 C.C. No.13142/2017
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 11/11/2014 in between 5.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m. in the night, accused committed theft of gold ornaments weighing about 50 grams worth Rs.40,000/- which was kept in the almera of the house of C.W. 1 Sri. Hanumantha Rao, bearing No.6, situated at 4th Cross Road, Om Shiva Shakthi Nagar, Chunchaghatta Main Road, within the limits of J.P. Nagar Police Station and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC?
2. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
11. Point No.1: In this case, accused has been alleged of
committing theft of gold ornaments weighing about 50 grams worth Rs.40,000/- which was kept in the almera of the house of C.W. 1 5 C.C. No.13142/2017 Sri. Hanumantha Rao, bearing No.6, situated at 4th Cross Road, Om Shiva Shakthi Nagar, Chunchaghatta Main Road.
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined its complainant Sri. Hanumantha Rao as P.W. 1, who has turned hostile to the prosecution case, not identified the accused and he has deposed about releasing of his gold ornaments through the process of court. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross- examination. Under such circumstances, there is no clear cut evidence in respect of identification of the accused by the complainant. Therefore, this court cannot hold accused as guilty minded person.
13. Similarly, prosecution has examined two independent mahazar witnesses as P.W. 2 and 3, wherein they have completely turned hostile, not deposed anything against accused, on the other hand they have identified their signatures on the mahazar and pleads their ignorance about its contents, hence the evidence of these witnesses is not reliable. In addition, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses by the prosecution. One police official has spoken about arresting the 6 C.C. No.13142/2017 accused which is not of much important in the absence of evidence of other material witnesses.
14. That apart, though the prosecution has cited as many as 13 witnesses, except C.W. 1, 5, 6 and 7 none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 2 to 4, 11 to 13 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, on 07/11/2017 this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons, warrants and even proclamation which can be seen from the order sheet. Therefore, they have been discharged from deposing the evidence. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of accused. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
15.Point No.2: In view of the negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
7 C.C. No.13142/2017
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC.
Accused is set at liberty forth with if he is not required in any other case. Issue intimation to Jail Authorities.
The interim custody of item No.23 to 27 seized and subjected under P.F. No.98/2015, to the complainant is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of July 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Hanumantha Rao P.W. 2: Jayaram P.W. 3: Jagan P.W. 4: Muniyappa
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Compalint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P. 2 : Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.3 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of P.W. 3 Ex.P.4 : Report 8 C.C. No.13142/2017 Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W. 4
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION M.O.1 to 6: Gold ornaments (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.9 C.C. No.13142/2017
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC.
Accused is set at liberty forth with if he is not required in any other case. Issue intimation to Jail Authorities.The interim custody of item No.23 to 27
seized and subjected under P.F. No.98/2015, to the complainant is made absolute.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10 C.C. No.13142/2017