Bangalore District Court
Smt Hemalata vs Maulali Manuvalli @ Ali on 5 August, 2025
KABC030134452022
IN THE COURT OF THE VI A.C.J.M. BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.3986/2022
Dated this the 05th Day of August, 2025
Before : Sri. MANJUNATH D.R.,
B.sc, LL.B.,
VI Addl. C.J.M BENGALURU CITY.
Complainant : The State by S. R. Nagar
Police Station.
(By Learned A.P.P)
-Versus-
1. Moulali Manuvalli @ Ali @ Moyen @
Khan, S/o Babu Sab,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.119, Kamptan Sab building,
Makka Masidi, 2nd Cross, R.S. Palya,
Kammanahalli, Banasavadi,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address
Fish Market, Behind Shivaji Circle,
Dharward,
And also at No.27, 2nd Cross,
Kanakanagara, Kalkeri,
Horamavu, Bengaluru.
2. Imran Pasha @ Pasha,
S/o Chandpasha,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.15/1, Masidi Road,
2 C.C.No.3986/2022
Ramaswamypalya, Kammanahalli
Main Road, Banasavadi, Bengaluru.
(Sri. B.A. Adv. for Accused)
Date of taking cognizance : 19.02.2022
Offences Registered
against accused : U/s.392 of IPC.
Date of commencing
evidence : 13.02.2024
Date of Judgment
pronounced : 05.08.2025
Duration of 03 05 17
Judgment : Year/s Month/s Day's
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
**** *
JUDGMENT
1. The S. R. Nagar Police have charge sheeted the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections U/s. 392 of IPC.
3 C.C.No.3986/20222. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follow:-
On 01.07.2022 at about 11.00 p.m., while the complainant was going in a two wheeler on Mission road in front of P.C. Mohan building, the accused no.1 and 2 came in a two wheeler and came near her on the pretext of asking address and snatched her purse containing Redmi Note mobile phone, 500 cash and other documents and thereby committed robbery. On the first information lodged by the CW1, FIR came to be registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the above said offences.
3. The Charges read over and explained to the accused no.1 and 2 and they have not pleaded guilty of alleged offences and claimed to be tried.
4. The Prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to 18.
5. The Statement of accused no.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused no.1 and 2 have denied all the incriminating materials 4 C.C.No.3986/2022 found against them and they have not led any defence evidence.
6. I heard learned APP and learned counsel appearing for the accused.
7. The points that arose for my consideration are:
:: P O I N T S ::
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.07.2022 at about 11.00 p.m., while the complainant was going in a two wheeler on Mission road in front of P.C. Mohan building, the accused no.1 and 2 came in a two wheeler and came near her on the pretext of asking address and snatched her purse containing Redmi Note mobile phone, 500 cash and other documents and thereby committed robbery and thereby committed offence punishable under section 392 of IPC?
Point No.2. What order?
8. After going through the records and hearing the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and after perusing the written arguments filed by the counsel for the accused. I answer the above points as under :
5 C.C.No.3986/2022 Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order, for
the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The prosecution in order to prove
its case has examined the investigating officer as PW1, seizure pancha witness as PW2,3 and 5, one tanvir ahmad as PW4, police constable as PW6, complainant as PW7, pancha as PW8 and investigating officer as PW9 and got marked memorandum at Ex.P1 to 3, reports at Ex.P4 to 6, scooter photo at Ex.P7, mobile photo at Ex.P8, mobile seizure panchanama at Ex.P9, photo at Ex.P10, seizure panchanama at Ex.P11, complaint at Ex.P12, spot panchanama at Ex.P13, FIR at Ex.P14, CDR request at Ex.P15, PF No.47/2021 at Ex.P16, PF No.48/2021 at Ex.P17, vehicle release panchanama at Ex.P18.
10. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW7 and in her evidence she has deposed that, on 01.07.2021 at about 11.20 p.m., while she was going on Mission Road in her two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-01-A-227 two 6 C.C.No.3986/2022 people came in a scooter near her on the pretext of asking address and snatched her side purse containing Redmi Note mobile phone, 500 cash, sim card, pass book, voter ID card, membership card and enrollment card and thereby committed robbery and due to shock she did not give complaint on the said day and on the next day she has given complaint as per Ex.P12 and police have conducted the spot panchanama in the place shown by her on the same day as per Ex.P13 and on 12.11.2021 police have called her to the police station and they have shown scooter and accused no.1 in the police station and she has identified the accused no.1 and the scooter and she has also identified her mobile and got released from the court and she has given statement to the police. PW7 is cross-examined and she has stated in her complaint that, the accused came in black colour Honda Activa scooter but the police have seized TVS scooter and further identification parade is not conducted in the case on hand. The counsel for accused argues that, the police have not at all conducted identification parade which is fatal to the prosecution case and contends that, the complainant is alleged to have seen the accused at 7 C.C.No.3986/2022 the time of incident and she has not at all seen the accused prior to the occurrence and the test identification parade is not conducted by the investigating officer and therefore identification of the accused in the court is valueless and cannot be relied upon and in order to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs., State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 Crl.L.J.630(2), further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Prakash Vs., State of Karnataka reported in 2014(12) SCC 133 and further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in Venkatesha Naik Vs., State of Karnataka in Crl. Revision. Petition No.1171/2022.
11. I have carefully perused the records, the investigating officer who is examined as PW9 in his evidence has deposed that, he registered an FIR on 02.07.2021 on the basis of the first information given by the CW1 and conducted the spot panchanama in the place shown by the complainant and he requested for CDR of the mobile and he was 8 C.C.No.3986/2022 informed that, the said mobile was being used by someone and accordingly he directed the CW11 to produce the said mobile before the court and he has produced the same before the court along with one Thanveer Ahmad before him and he has seized the said mobile under the Ex.P9 panchanama in the presence of panchas and CW8 Thanveer Ahmad stated that, he purchased the mobile from the accused no.1 in OlX and further he deposed that, the CW11 has produced the accused no.1 and two wheeler before him and he has seized the same under the Ex.P11 panchanama in presence of panchas and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 and accused no.2 was absconding and therefore filed the absconding charge sheet against him and further deposed that, the accused no.1 has given voluntarily statement before him regarding the commission of the robbery. PW9 is cross-examined and in the cross-examination he has clearly deposed that, the complainant has stated in her compliant that, the accused came in a Honda Activa scooter but the seized vehicle is TVS scooter and further his evidence discloses that, no identification parade is 9 C.C.No.3986/2022 conducted regarding the identification of the accused no.1 and 2.
12. The prosecution has examined the investigating officer as PW1 and he deposed that, the CW12 directed him to find out the mobile CDR and accordingly he found that, one Thanveer Ahmed was using the stolen mobile and he produced the said Thanveer Ahmed before the investigating officer CW12 and thereafter he traced the accused no.1 and produced the accused no.1 along with the TVS scooter before the CW12 and he brought the CW1 to the police station and she has identified the accused no.1 by giving restatement. He has submitted the further investigation to CW12.
13. The prosecution has examined the one Thanveer Ahamed as PW4 and in his evidence he has deposed that, he has purchased the Redmi Note mobile phone from one Moheen Ali in OlX with bill in July 2021 and he also deposed that, police have directed him to produce the said mobile before the police station and accordingly he has produced the said mobile before the police station and police have 10 C.C.No.3986/2022 taken the mobile as per Ex.P9 panchanama. It is relevant to mention that, the alleged mobile was purchased by one Tanveer Ahmed from the accused no.1 in OlX with mobile bill, but no such materials are produced before the court to show that, the PW4 had purchased the said mobile from the accused no.1. It is relevant to mention that, the PW4 himself has stated that, he had a mobile bill but the prosecution has not produced any such mobile bill before the court to show that, the PW4 has purchased the said mobile phone from the accused no.1 and therefore the evidence of PW4 is not sufficient to prove the alleged guilt of the accused.
14. The prosecution case is that, the mobile was seized from Tanveer Ahamed in presence of panchas but the pancha who is examined as PW2 has deposed that, police have taken his signature in the document while he was going in double road and they have shown one mobile phone to him at the time of taking his signature. It is relevant to mention that, Ex.P9 panchanama was conducted in the police station, but PW2 deposed that, he has put his signature on double road while he was going in his 11 C.C.No.3986/2022 car and therefore the evidence of PW2 does not prove the alleged recovery of mobile from Thanveer Ahamed.
15. The prosecution has examined another pancha to the Ex.P9 panchanama as PW3 and he deposed that, one Thanveer Ahmed has produced one mobile before the police and police have seized the mobile. The evidence of PW3 discloses that, one mobile phone was seized from one Tanveer Ahamed in the presence of PW3 but it does not prove that, the said mobile phone was sold by the accused no.1 in favour of Tanveer Ahamed beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is that, the TVS scooter which was alleged to have been used for commission of the crime was seized under the Ex.P11 panchanama in presence of panchas, but pancha to the Ex.P11 panchanama is examined as PW5 and he deposed that, police have taken his signature in the police station by taking his photos and he has not supported the prosecution case. He is treated as hostile witness and he is cross-examined by the learned App by suggesting that, on 11.11.2021 between 5.30 and 6.15 p.m., under the Ex.P11 12 C.C.No.3986/2022 panchanama TVS scooter was seized from the accused no.1 in his presence. But the said suggestion was denied by the PW3 and nothing worthy was elicited in the course of the cross- examination in favour of the prosecution.
16. The complainant has examined the pancha to the spot panchanama as PW8 and he deposed that, police have conducted the spot panchanama in the place shown by the complainant in his presence under Ex.P13 panchanama. The evidence of PW8 only speak about the conducting of the spot panchanama at the spot. The materials on record discloses that, the complainant in her complaint stated that, unknown people came in Honda Activa and snatched her purse. The prosecution case is that, the accused came in TVS scooter and further the prosecution case is that, the accused no.1 has sold the mobile in favour of the one Tanveer Ahamed in OlX. But the prosecution has not produced any such OlX documents and further Tanveer Ahamed himself has deposed before the court that, he purchased the mobile in OlX with mobile bill, but no such bill is produced before the court. The 13 C.C.No.3986/2022 prosecution case is that, the TVS scooter was seized under the panchanama in presence of panchas but the pancha to the recovery panchanama has not supported the prosecution case and recovery of the TVS scooter is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is relevant to mention that, any voluntarily statement given by the accused before the police is not admissible in evidence unless the recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. The learned App argues that, the complainant has identified the accused in the court and her evidence is sufficient for Conviction and prays for Conviction of the accused.
18. It is relevant to mention that, admittedly the accused was not familiar to the complainant and the complainant did not know the accused before the occurrence of the crime and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above cited decisions have clearly held that, when the complainant is not familiar to the accused and if complainant did not know the accused before the occurrence of the crime and if the identification 14 C.C.No.3986/2022 parade is not conducted to test the power of the identification, the evidence of the complainant becomes absolutely valueless on the question of identification and therefore in the absence of identification parade the evidence of complainant is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt.
19. It is relevant to mention that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Jaganath Markand v/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (1) SCC 537 has clearly held that;
"the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and further held that, the degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability."15 C.C.No.3986/2022
I have carefully perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the materials on record, the evidence produced by prosecution has failed to carry a high degree of probability with regard to the alleged offences committed by the accused. Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and accused are entitled to be Acquitted. Hence, with the above observations, I hold point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
20. Point No.2: For the reasons stated and discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER The accused no.1 and 2 are ACQUITTED U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
for the offences punishable U/s 392 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by accused no.1 and 2 shall be continued for a period of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of August, 2025).
(MANJUNATH D.R.) VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
16 C.C.No.3986/2022ANNEXURE
1. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
1. P.W.1. : Basavaraju Thalikote
2. P.W.2. : Abdul Muthalik
3. P.W.3. : Asadulla Shareef
4. P.W.4. : Tanveer Ahamed
5. P.W.5. : Keshava Prasad
6. P.W.6. : Rahul Chimmalagi
7. P.W.7. : M. Hemalatha
8. P.W.8. : A. R. Shashikumar
9. P.W.9. : Rajesh R.
2. The List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
1. Ex.P1 to 3: Memorandum
2. Ex.P4 to 6: Reports
3. Ex.P7. : Scooter photo
4. Ex.P8. : Mobile photo
5. Ex.P9. : Seizure panchanama
6. Ex.P10. : Photo
7. Ex.P11. : Seizure panchanama
8. Ex.P12. : Compliant
9. Ex.P13. : Panchanama
10. Ex.P14. : FIR
11. Ex.P15. : CDR Request
12. Ex.P16. : P.F.No.47/2021
13. Ex.P17. : P.F.No.48/2021
14. Ex.P18. : Vehicle release panchanama 17 C.C.No.3986/2022
3. The witnesses examined on behalf of accused :-
-NIL-
4. The List of documents marked on behalf of accused:-
-NIL-
5. The list of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution.
-NIL-
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH MANJUNATH D R
DR Date: 2025.08.11
17:35:43 +0530
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.