Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs No.1 And 2 Called C.W.1-Ravindra From ... on 16 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY, 2018
Serial Number of the C.C.14568/2015
case
Name of the State by Police Sub
complainant Inspector, Malleswaram
Police station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused
person 1). Sameeksha @ Lakshmi,
W/o.Prakash,
Aged about 21 years,
R/a.No.32, 3rd cross,
Saraswathipura, Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-.
2).Vedamurthy J.
S/o.Jayalappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at.No.35, 2nd main, Kalyan
Nagar, Moodalapalya,
Bangalore.
(Rept.by.Sri.Harish B.K..
Adv.,
Offences complained of U/Secs.384, 506 of the IPC
Date of commencement In between 29.12.2014 and
of offence 31.12.2014
2 C.C.14568/2015
Name of informant of Sri.Ravindra.H.G.
crime
Offences Proved NIL
Plea of the accused and Total denial
his examination :
Final Order : Accused are Acquitted
Date of the Final Order 16.07.2018
JUDGMENT
(U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C) Police Sub Inspector of Malleswaram Police station submitted this charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 in Cr.No.316/2014 for the offences punishable U/s.384, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
2. In brief case of the prosecution runs thus:-
That on 29.12.2014, near Deputy Superintendent Office, P.U Board, Malleswaram, the accused no.1 and 2 called C.W.1-Ravindra from his office and made C.W.1-Ravindra (Govt.Gazetted Official) to sit in a car and the accused demanded Rs.5,00,000 from him(C.W.1) and threatened to defame him. Further, on 31.12.2014 the accused no.1 and 2 called C.W.1-Ravindra from mobile bearing No.9743891662 and criminally intimidated to the life of C.W.1 and his family 3 C.C.14568/2015 members, if he did not pay money as demanded by the accused and thereby the accused committed the above said offences.
3. After submitting charge sheet the criminal case came to be registered against accused. Sec. 207 Cr.P.C complied. Charge framed and read over to the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 385, 506 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. On behalf of prosecution, in all evidence of P.W.1 is adduced and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.4. Prosecution evidence is closed.
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec. 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC. The accused no.1 and 2 denied each and every circumstance found against the them as false. No defence evidence on behalf of accused. Defence of the accused is one of total denial of the case of the prosecution.
5. Heard both sides.
4 C.C.14568/2015
6. The point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 385 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?"
My finding to the above point is in the Negative for the reasons stated below:
II. Brief statement of reasons
1. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the informant of crime -C.W.1 by name Ravindra.J.H-Section Officer of P.U. Examination Board as P.W.1. This witness in his evidence deposed that about 5-6 years back one day the accused no.1 shown him a video and also stated that this P.W.1 has taken money from others by giving assurance to provide job and also accused no.1 stated that there is video recording with him and he would release the video if he did not pay money. Further he deposed that he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. Thereafter Investigating Officer conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
This P.W.1 is treated as hostile witness. In the cross examination it is specifically suggested on behalf of 5 C.C.14568/2015 prosecution that accused no.1 and 2 demanded cash of Rs.5 lakhs. Further he admitted in the cross examination that he mentioned about life threat in the complaint. This court observed that the evidence of P.W.1 as to demanding money is not corroborating with the case of the prosecution. As to involvement of the accused no.2 also, the evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the case of the prosecution.
2. C.W.5-Retd.PSI who is examined as P.W.2 is his evidence deposed that he received the complaint and registered crime and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.3 and he conducted mahazar on the spot as per Ex.P.2 and he recorded statement of C.W.2 to 4 and collected call details of the accused no.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.4 and thereafter he submitted charge sheet to the court. During cross examination the say of this witness is denied as false by way of suggestion, but this P.W.2 withstood to his version.
3. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Repeatedly NBW was issued against other witnesses. NBW was issued 6 C.C.14568/2015 through DCP and later NBW was issued through COP also. After giving sufficient opportunities, by rejecting prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor prosecution evidence is taken as closed.
4. In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar 900 (State of Kar v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
4. In the present case on hand, as I have above stated the evidence of P.W.1-prime witness is not corroborating with the case of the prosecution and evidence of P.W.1 remained uncorroborated with the evidence of any other witnesses, except the evidence of Investigating Officer. In the circumstances, the evidence of Investigating 7 C.C.14568/2015 Officer-P.W.2 not taking material role in deciding the material controversy.
5. Looking into the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and considering the circumstances, it is crystal clear that the evidence and circumstances are not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused only. Further this court held that in the circumstances, it is not safe and proper to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and convict the accused for the alleged offences. Further this court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently I answer the above said point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following order....
III. Final Order:
Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.8 C.C.14568/2015
Accused no.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety stand cancelled.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July 2018).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
--------
ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Ravindra.J.H P.W.2: H.B.Mahadevaiah-Retd.PSI
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 - Complaint
Ex.P.2 - Mahazar
Ex.P.3 - FIR
Ex.P.4 -Call details of accused no.1 and 2
Ex.P.1(a) to P.3(a)-Signatures
9 C.C.14568/2015
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Nil
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.