Bangalore District Court
State By Sampigehalli vs 3. Raju @ Rajendra S/O on 10 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 10th day of June 2019
PRESENT:
Smt. Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni, B.Com., L L.B. (Spl.),
CMM, Bengaluru
C.C. No.30220/2014
Complainant : State by Sampigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : 3. Raju @ Rajendra s/o
Hintharam, Prabhu Bankers and
Jewelers, D.P.Nagarajareddy
Building, 1st Main Road,
Devarachikkanahalli,
Beguru Road, Bengaluru-76.
Date of offence : 20-12-2012
Offences : Section 392, 411 IPC
Plea of the : Accused No-3
Accused pleaded not guilty
2 CC No.30220/2014
Final order : Accused No-3
Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 10-06-2019
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
This is a split up case from the original
CC No.15877/2013. The Police Inspector of
Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, has filed
this split up charge sheet against accused No-3 for the
offences punishable under Section 392 and 411 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are
that-
On 20-12-2012 at about 4.00 p.m. near 10th Cross
Junction, 80 feet Road, MCECHS Layout, Bengaluru,
the accused No-1 and 2 were standing by parking a
motor cycle. At that time, when CW1 N.Radha was
proceeding to purchase vegetables, the accused No-1
had snatched the gold mangalya chain weighing about
40 grams worth Rs.1 lakh and escaped from there along
with accused No-2 in the motor cycle. It is also alleged
that accused No-3 had dishonestly received the above
said gold mangalya chain from accused No-1 and 2
3 CC No.30220/2014
knowing it to be robbed property. Thereby the accused
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Accused No-3 is on bail. After furnishing
charge-sheet copies, charge for the alleged offences was
framed, read over and explained in the language known
to accused No-3. The accused No-3 pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all three witnesses as PW1 to 3 and
produced documents as per Ex.P1 to 4. Thereafter, the
statement of accused No-3, as required U/S 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has denied the
incriminating evidence deposed against him and did not
choose to lead any defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments.
6. According to prosecution, accused No-1 and 2
had robbed the gold mangalya chain belonging to CW1
N.Radha on the alleged date, time, place and accused
No-3 had received the same from them knowingly it to
be robbed property. As already noted, this is a split up
case and as such let me analyze as to whether there is
any evidence against accused No-3.
4 CC No.30220/2014
7. PW1 Lokanandareddy is the alleged spot panch
mahazar witness. He has deposed that the police had
visited spot with regard to robbery of gold chain
belonging to complainant and conducted Ex.P1 mahazar
in his presence. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is
elicited that he came to know about the incident from
CW1 through phone.
8. PW2 Radha is the complainant. She has deposed
that during the year 2012 at about 4.00 p.m., when she
was proceeding on Hegdenagar Main Road to Super
Market for purchase of vegetables, 2 persons came in a
motor cycle by wearing helmet and robbed her
mangalya chain by way of showing knife. In this regard,
she lodged Ex.P2 complaint and the police conducted
Ex.P1 mahazar. It is her further evidence that after few
days, the police had called her to police station and
showed her ornament, wherein she had identified it and
got released the chain at Ex.P3 to her interim custody
through court order. It is the further evidence of PW2
that nobody were shown to her by police in the station.
The Sr.APP treated this witness as hostile and cross-
examined, wherein PW2 denied that the accused No-1
was shown to her in the police station and that accused
5 CC No.30220/2014
No-1 had disposed the ornament to accused No-3 and by
knowing that, the gold chain was seized from him.
9. Lastly, PW3 Narasimhamurthy is the then PC of
CCB. He deposed that he along with others
accompanied CW18 for seizure of properties in Crime
No.158/13 of Subramanyapura P.S., the panchas CW6
to 8 were called and they had been to the house of
accused at Begur Road, Chamundeshwari Nagar. The
accused produced two chains saying that the same are
stolen property, as a result of which CW18 had seized it
under Ex.P4 mahazar in the presence of panchas and
himself. In the cross-examination of PW3, it is elicited
that the mahazar was conducted in the house of accused
No-3.
10. As already noted, PW2 being complainant has
categorically stated that nobody were shown to him by
the police. Also she has improved the case of
prosecution by stating that at the time of robbery, the
accused had used knife to threaten her. Further she has
denied that accused No-1 had disposed the chain to
accused No-3 and by knowing the same the police had
seized it. As such it is clear that the complainant PW2
has failed to identify accused No-3.
6 CC No.30220/2014
11. In theft or robbery cases, the evidence of
seizure mahazar witnesses is material to prove the
alleged offence against accused. But in the present case,
the prosecution has failed to adduce the evidence of
seizure panchas namely CW4 Shaik Afroz, CW5
Salman Khan, CW6 Anandakrishna and CW7
H.Ravikumar, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
Also the evidence of IO who has seized the robbed
property, is not made available to court, inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities.
12. So to sum up, on careful scrutiny of the
prosecution evidence available on record, this court is of
the considered opinion that no material circumstances
are there to connect accused No-3 in this case. There is
neither direct nor circumstantial evidence against
accused No-3. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish
its case against accused No-3 beyond all reasonable
doubt and as such he is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No-3 is acquitted 7 CC No.30220/2014 of the offences punishable under Section 392 and 411 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused No-3 shall stand canceled.
Office to keep this file in CC No.15877/2013, the original case against accused No-1 and 2, without fail.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer. The computerized print out taken by Steno is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on this day i.e., 10-06-2019) (Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
PW1 : Lokanandareddy
PW2 : Radha
PW3 : Narasimhamurthy
List of Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2 : Complaint
Ex.P3 : Photograph
8 CC No.30220/2014
Ex.P4 : Seizure Mahazar
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.9 CC No.30220/2014
10-06-2019 (Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No-3 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 392 and 411 of IPC. The bail bond of accused No-3 shall stand canceled.
Office to keep this file in CC No.15877/2013, the original case against accused No-1 and 2, without fail.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.