Bangalore District Court
Subramanyapura P S vs A3 Srikanth V on 30 August, 2025
KABC010233902019
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1111/2019
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By Subramanyapura Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
- VS -
Accused : A3. Srikantha V,
S/o. Late Vishwanath,
30 years,
R/o No.16/17, 4th Main,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Sonnappa Reddy Desai,
Adv.)
***
2 S.C.No.1111/2019
Date of offence : 12.11.2016.
Date of report of offence : 12.11.2016.
Name of the complainant : Rangamani R.
Date of commencement of : 120.02.2023.
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 11.06.2025.
Offences complained of : Sec.413 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty.
***
JUDGMENT
The present case emanates from Crime No.693/2016 registered by Subramanyapura Police Station based on the first information statement tendered by Smt.Rangamani W/o K.Ramakrishna,
Pegalapalli, Somayajinapalli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar, on 12.11.2016 at 1.00 p.m.
2. The crux of the case of the prosecution could be summarised as follows;
The informant claims to be resident of Srinivasapura Taluk and her brother Sri.B.G.Sheshadri 3 S.C.No.1111/2019 is residing in F-1, Flat No.66, Gajanana Apartment, 5 th Cross, 4th Main, Maruthi Layout Vasanthpura Bengaluru. Sri.B.S.Sunil is the son of Sri.B.G.Sheshadri who is said to have purchased a flat in Krishna Residency Apartment, 7th cross and had fixed Gruhapravesham of the house on 10.11.2016. The informant was invited along with other relatives and friends and the informant claims to have come to the house of her brother Sri.B.G.Sheshadri on 9.11.2016. The informant claims to have attended gruhapravesham ceremony and returned to the house of her brother. On 12.11.2016, Sri Sathyanarayana Pooja was arranged at the house of Sri.B.S.Sunil. The informant claims to have attended the function and at about 12.15 p.m., while she was proceeding towards the house of her brother in the 5th cross passing through a pathway over a vacant site a person is alleged to have come from her opposite direction and pushed the informant. The person had then snatched two golden chains worn by the informant. A portion of the chain remained in the fist of the informant. At that time a discover motor cycle being ridden by a person in pink shirt is said to have come at that place and the person, who had snatched the golden chain had fled from the spot on the motor cycle. The 4 S.C.No.1111/2019 person who had snatched the chains is said to have worn white shirt, black pant, sports shoe and had curly hairs. The informant claims to have sustained injuries on her right knee on account of she being pushed by the assailant. The chains worn by the informant weighed 65 grams approximately. Hence, the informant accordingly had lodged the information.
3. The learned II ACMM, Bengaluru City, on receipt of the final report from the Police, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused and registered a case in C.C.No.10569/2017. Complied with the requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter by an order dated 02.07.2019, committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru, under Section 209 of Cr.PC.
4. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on receipt of the records from the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered the case in S.C.No.1111/2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Accused appeared before the Court through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail.
5 S.C.No.1111/20195. After hearing both the sides, this Court has framed the charge against accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 413 of IPC, read over and explained the same in the language known to him and he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got examined 10 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 documents.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has taken a plea of total denial and has not led any defence evidence.
8. Heard the arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the accused. Perused the materials placed on record along with citations.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
6 S.C.No.1111/20191. Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, the accused No.3 knowing that the property brought by accused Nos.1 & 2 was stolen by them, had been purchasing and had purchased the said stolen property and given money to accused Nos.1 & 2 and thereby accused No.3 has committed an offence punishable under Section 413 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?
10. My findings on the above points are:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
11. Points No.1: The present case was split up as against the accused No.3 against whom the charges leveled by the prosecution is that, he was employed in Attica Company, where the stolen golden ornaments were being purchased. The case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be tried in S.C.No.510/ 2017.
12. The case of the prosecution was that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were the assailants who were involved in the chain snatching. The case in S.C.No.510/2017 on trial came to be concluded on 7 S.C.No.1111/2019 13.10.2021 and it was held that, the two accused were not guilty of any offence. When the case in S.C.No.510/2017 had ended in acquittal of the two accused, who according to the prosecution were involved in committing theft of the golden ornaments by snatching, the question of the accused, who has faced the trial in this case has to be acquitted. The witnesses examined by the prosecution also are not found to have either identified the accused except the Investigating Officer. The prosecution is not successful in examining one witness, who could depose regarding the relationship between the alleged stolen golden ornaments and the accused.
13. PW.1 Smt.Rangamani is found to have narrated the incident in her examination in chief. The witness had identified her signature on the first information statement at Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1.(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness had also identified her signature on Ex.P.2 spot panchanama at Ex.P.2 (a). According to this witness, on 21.01.2017, the police had called her to the station, where she was shown two accused, who had committed the offence against this witness at the spot. The other part of the story of the 8 S.C.No.1111/2019 prosecution regarding the ornaments being sold to Attica Gold Company and the recovery of the same on the alleged statement of the accused are only a hearsay evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that, either the accused nos.1 and 2 had made a statement in the presence of this witness or that the recoveries were made in the presence of this witness. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, who had made suggestions to the witness that were all denied by the witness. Ex.P.8 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
14. PW.2 Sri.Harshawardhan is a witness to the spot panchanama, who had deposed regarding the spot being shown by CW.1 and in the presence of this witness, spot panchanama was drawn. Ex.P.2 (b) is the signature of this witness identified by him. Even during the cross-examination, the witness could not be discredited. The witness had withstood the vigor of the cross-examination.
15. PW.3 Sri.Kendegowda is a witness to panchanama at Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9(a) is the signature of this 9 S.C.No.1111/2019 witness. Apart from having identified his signature on the panchanama, the witness had not deposed regarding seizures made under the panchanama. According to this witness, he had affixed his signature on the panchanama at Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station about 6 years prior to the date on which he had deposed before the Court. The witness had deposed before the Court on 20.02.2023. PW.3 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness are found to have been denied by him. Ex.P.10 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16. PW.4 Sri.Prakash is a witness to the panchanama drawn at Attica Gold Company. The witness is found to have stated that, the accused No.3 in the office of the Attica Gold Company at the queen's road had admitted in his presence regarding receipt of golden ornaments from the accused. The witness is found to have also asserted that, the Police had caused seizure of computer and DVR. Smt.Jayaprada, wife of the second accused had also pledged golden ornaments with Attica 10 S.C.No.1111/2019 Gold Company. Apart from this office of Attica Gold Company, the witness is found to have referred to two other offices of the company at other places. However, the witness is unable to recall as to who had pledged the golden ornaments and who on behalf of the company had received them. Now, the prosecution had also not placed the computer or the DVRs that were seized at the offices of Attica Gold Company. There are also no documents to show that, such golden ornaments were pledged or sold to Attica Gold Company. PW.4 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness were all denied by him. Ex.P.12 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. PW.5 Sri.Gopal, an Inspector in the ISRO Layout Station claims to have gone to Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station. He was then taken to various offices of Attica Gold Company. He is a witness to a panchanama at Ex.P.9. The witness is found to have stated regarding computer, CPU, DVR etc., being seized at the offices of Attica Gold Company. The witness 11 S.C.No.1111/2019 asserts that, he was neither shown golden ornaments seized nor any golden ornaments being seized under the panchanama. PW.5 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness were all denied by him. Ex.P.12 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
18. PW.9 Sri.Vijay Krishnan, auto driver and resident of Hassan is a witness to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of this witness identified by him. The spot panchanama was drawn at the place, where the alleged incident had taken place. CW.1 is said to be also present and they all had signed on the panchanama. Smt.Rangamani is said to have shown the spot. The witness was not cross-examined and in so far as the offence relating to this spot is concerned, this Court in S.C.No.510/2017 had already acquitted the two accused after a trial vide judgment dated 13.10.2021. Hence, this witness would not be of so relevance.
19. PW.6 Sri.K.Kumaraswamy is the Retired PSI, who claims to have worked as such in the 12 S.C.No.1111/2019 Subramanayapura Police Station between August 2016 and 2021. On 12.11.2016 at 1.00 p.m., CW.1 is said to have appeared at the Police Station and tendered Ex.P.1. On the basis of the first information statement at Ex.P.1, a case in Crime No.693/2016 was registered at the Police Station. Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of the witness identified by him. Ex.P.14 is the first information report prepared by this witness based on Ex P 1. Ex.P.14(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness was suggested that, there was an inordinate delay in sending the first information report and that a false case was lodged on the instructions of the higher officials. These suggestions were denied by the witness. Apart from that, nothing much appears to have been elicited through this witness.
20. PW.7 Sri.Kempegowda, P.I., JJ Nagar Police Station claims to have discharged duty as such in the Subramanyapura Police Station between 21.11.2016 and 20.02.2019. On 5.12.2016, this witness claims to have received the case file in this case from CW.17 Sri.Prakash Rathore and carried on with further investigation. On 16.01.2017, the witness claims to have deputed PSI Sri.Arjun to secure case papers with 13 S.C.No.1111/2019 materials gathered by K.S.Layout Police Station in Crime No.438/2016 relevant for this case. PSI Sri.Arjun had produced gold biscuit weighing 51.5 gms relevant in this case. On 21.01.2017, as per the orders of the Court, this witness claims to have released the golden ingot to the CW.1. Ex.P.4 is the photograph showcasing the release of the article. The investigation was complete and police report with materials came to be filed. Apart from the golden ingot said to have been seized, there are absolutely no materials to show that any ornaments were received from either the accused or his wife. If any ornaments were received, its weight and other particulars are also not to found. The weight of the lost golden ornaments of CW.1 is said to be 65 gms and the ingot weighed 51.5 gms. It appears to be equivalent, however, it is not clear as to the status of the ornaments before it was being melted to an ingot. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish this aspect of the matter.
21. PW.8 Sri.L.Rajendra, Retired PSI claims to have discharged duty as such in K.S.Layout Police Station between august, 2016 and January, 2017. This witness claims to have registered a case in Crime 14 S.C.No.1111/2019 No.433/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code based on the information in writing tendered by Smt.Annapoorna. On 24.12.2016, this witness claims to have deputed CWs.10 to 13 to secure the accused. On the same day, CWs.10 to 13 had secured accused Nos.1 and 2 with motor cycle and a report. Ex.P.15 is the report and Ex.P.15(a) is the signature of the witness. Thereafter, in the presence of CWs.4 and 5, he had recovered and seized a button knife, 2 mangalya drops and 4 gold gundu. The panchanama is at Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have recorded the statements of the witnesses CWs.4, 5, 11 to 13. The witness had identified the articles at Exs.P.3 to 7. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused and moreover, in so far as this witness is concerned, it would relate to the offence committed by the accused nos.1 and 2, that was already considered and appreciated by this Court in S.C.No.510/2017.
22. PW.10 Sri.Ravi Patil, PI Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga claims to have discharged duty as such in the CCB Police Station between 2018 and 2019. PSI Rajendra had apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2 15 S.C.No.1111/2019 and this witness claims to have obtained the two accused to the police custody on the order of the learned Magistrate. On 28.10.2016, this witness claims to have recorded the statement of the accused. This witness had then secured panch witnesses and they all were led by the accused to the place where the offence was committed and five golden ingots were seized by drawing up of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Amongst the golden ingot recovered, the ingot weighing 51.5 gms would relate to this case. During the cross- examination, it was elicited that, while this witness was investigating into the case, he had not come across any materials to link the accused no.3 now before the Court with the offence. This would clearly lead to the conclusion that, the present accused is not proven to have committed any offence as alleged against him by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the question of holding the present accused as guilty of the offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code would not arise. Accordingly, I have answered the point No.1 is in the Negative.
23. Point No.2:- In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
16 S.C.No.1111/2019ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable undr Section 413 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of August, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW.1 : Smt.Rangamani.
PW.2 : Sri.Harshavardhana.
PW.3 : Sri.Kendegowda.
PW.4 : Sri.Prakash.
PW.5 : Sri.Gopal.
PW.6 : Sri.M.Kumaraswamy.
PW.7 : Sri.Kempegowda.
PW.8 : Sri.L.Rajendra.
PW.9 : Sri.Vijay Krishnan.
PW.10 : Sri.Ravi Patil.
17 S.C.No.1111/2019
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : First information statement. Ex.P1(a) & : Signatures.
(b) Ex.P2 : Spot Panchanama. Ex.P2(a) : Signatures. (b),(c) Ex.P3 to 7 : Photographs. Ex.P8 : Statement of Smt.Rangamani. Ex.P9 : Seizure panchanama. Ex.P9(a) : Signatures. (b) Ex.P.10 : Statement of Sri.Kendegowda. Ex.P.11 : Panchanama. Ex.P.11(a) : Signature. Ex.P.12 : Statement of Sri.Prakash. Ex.P.13 : Statement of Sri.Gopal. Ex.P.14 : FIR. Ex.P.15 : Report dated 24.12.2016. Ex.P.15(a) : Signature.
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused: NIL IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of accused: NIL V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: NIL (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.