Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Police Sub-Inspector vs Unknown on 30 June, 2016

    IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
        SESSIONS JUDGE; BANGALORE CITY
                  (CCH.NO 66)

                        PRESENT

       SRI.N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA B.A.,LL.B.,
     LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
             BANGALORE

       Dated this the 30th day of June, 2016

                  S.C.No.77/2016

COMPLAINANT :               State By Police Sub-Inspector,
                            Yeshwanthpura Police Station,
                            Bengaluru
                            Reptd by Public Prosecutor.

                            / Vs /
ACCUSED :
                  A5. Shankar @ Kuruda Shankar, S/o
                      Velu, Aged 24 years, R/at 2nd
                      Cross, 9th Main, Akkiyappa
                      Garden, Yeshwanthpura,
                      Bengaluru.

                            (Sri M.G.S, Adv)

Date                   of               21.08.2012
Commencement           of
offences
Date of report of                       21.08.2012
offences
Name of complainant              Sri Srinivasulu, PSI,
                                     Yeshwanthpura PS
Date of recording of                    28.06.2016
evidence
                                  2              S.C.No.77/2016




Date of closing of                       28.06.2016
evidence
Offence complained                U/s.399 and 402 of IPC
of
Opinion of the judge                       Acquittal

                                ****

                         JUDGMENT

Police Sub-Inspector, Yeshwanthpura Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed this split up charge sheet filed against A5, of the offences u/S. 399 and 402 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of prosecution case are as follows:

On 21.8.2013 at about 7.05p.m., while CW1 K.Srinivasalu PSI, Yeshwanthpura P.S., discharging duty, he received credible information that, at VR Layout, Mathikere, nearby Ramaiah grave yard, beside railway track, about 5-6 assailants holding with deadly weapons, are making preparation to commit dacoity of residents of locality. Hence, CW1 summoned CW2 Ravi and CW3 Roopchand; the panchas and CW4 to CW8; the police personnel and then CW1 along with CW2 to CW8, have rushed near the scene of offence and after confirming that those assailants are 3 S.C.No.77/2016 making preparation to commit dacoity, have apprehended four assailants, who are A1 to A4 in this case. However, the other two assailants managed to escape from the scene of offence, who are A5 and A6 in this case. Upon search, A1 to A4 were found possessed with knives and Chilly powder contained pack and hence, CW1 seized those articles from A1 to A4. Upon enquiry, it revealed that A1 to A6 were gathered there, in order to commit dacoity and to rob the valuables of nearby residents. Thereafter, CW1 by drawing mahazar, has seized those deadly weapons from A1 to A4 and then accompanied them to the Police Station, along with seized articles and produced before CW8 Raghavendra, PSI. At that juncture CW1 has lodged first information. Accordingly, CW8 registered the case against A1 to A6, for the offences p/u/Sec. 399 and 402 of IPC and lodged FIR to the jurisdictional Court and after completion of investigation, he submitted Final Report before the Committal court.

3. Committal court has complied the provisions of Sec.207 and 209 of Cr.P.C. After committal records received, case has been registered in S.C.77/2016 and made over to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. A5 secured before this court and he is duly represented by his counsel. After hearing from both side, this Court has framed the charges and explained to A5, of the offences p/u/Sec. 399 and 402 of IPC. However, A5 pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against him and he claimed to be tried. Hence the case has been posted for trial. Prosecution in all examined 02 witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2, got exhibited 03 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.03, got identified M.O.1 to 4 and closed its side. After conclusion of evidence from prosecution side, A5 is examined as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C However, A5 denied the incriminating evidence on record and he has not chosen to lead defense evidence.

4. Heard argument from both side.

5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are: 5 S.C.No.77/2016

1. Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 21.8.2012 at about 7.05.p.m., within the limits of Yeshwanthpura PS at V.R.layout, nearby Ramaiah grave yard compound, beside railway track, A5 along with A1 to A4 and A6 in original proceedings S.C.No.539/14, holding with deadly weapons like knives and chilly powder contained packets, were making preparation to commit dacoity to rob the valuables of nearby residents and thereby A5 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.399 of IPC?

2. Secondly, whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A5 along with A1 to A4 & A6, assembled there in order to commit dacoity of nearby residents and thereby A5 has committed an offence p/u/Sec. 402 of IPC?

3. What Order ?

6. My answer to the above points are :

POINT NO.1 : In the Negative POINT NO.2 : In the Negative POINT NO.3 : As per the final order for the Following:

REASONS

7. POINT NOs.1 and 2 : Since these two points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these points together for discussion and answer.

8. In order to connect A5 to the guilt circumstances, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2. According to prosecution, PW1 K.Srinivasulu, then PSI, Yeshwanthpura P.S., has conducted raid, arrested A1 to A4 and then lodged complaint against them and that apart he also seized M.O.1 to M.O.4 under Ex.P.1 in the presence of panchas. PW2 Raghavendra.M Byndoor, PSI, deposes with regard to lodging FIR to the Court, conducting investigation and submission of charge sheet. It is relevant note that CW2 Ravi and CW3 Roopchand, who are stated to be the direct witnesses and independent attesters to Ex.P.1, are 7 S.C.No.77/2016 not secured before the Court. In view of report submitted by the concerned police, evidence of CW2 and CW3 is taken as closed, since it is reported that CW2 and CW3 have left the given address. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are given up by the prosecution.

9. PW1 in his evidence reiterates the allegations made in the complaint. According to the PW1 on 21.8.2013 at about 7.05p.m while he was discharging duty within the limits of Yeshwanthpura P.S., he received credible information that, at VR Layout, Mathikere, nearby Ramaiah grave yard, beside the railway track about 5-6 assailants holding with deadly weapons, are making preparation to commit dacoity of local residents and hence, he summoned CW2 Ravi and CW3 Roopchand being the panchas and CW4 to CW8 the police personnel and then himself along with CW2 to CW8 rushed near the alleged scene of offence and after confirming that those assailants are making preparation to commit dacoity of residents of the locality, himself and CW4 to CW7 by surrounding A1 to A6, 8 S.C.No.77/2016 apprehended 4 assailants, who are A1 to A4 in this case. However, two other assailants managed to escape from the scene of offence, who are A5 & A6. During the course of evidence PW1 identified A5. He further deposes that accused persons found possessed with M.O.1 to M.O.4 i.e.., 3 sharp knives and packet containing chilly powder. He also deposes that by drawing mahazar at Ex.P1, he seized those deadly weapons i.e.,M.O.1 to M.O.4 and accompanied A1 to A4 to the Police Station, along with seized articles and produced them before PW2 and also lodged complaint at Ex.P2. PW1 admits the suggestion that he has not caused any notice to the panchas and not mentioned Reg. No. of the vehicles at Ex.P.2. PW1 denies the suggestion that he has not at all received any information about accused and neither himself nor other police personnel have been to the scene of offence and took custody of accused. It is elicited from the mouth of PW1 that he has not at all made any entry in the Station House Dairy to the effect that to which place himself and CW4 to CW7 were proceeding. PW1 denies the suggestion that he has not at all summoned 9 S.C.No.77/2016 CW2 and CW3 near the scene of offence and not drawn Ex.P.1 at the scene of offence and seized M.O.1 to 4 under Ex.P.1 from the possession of accused. However, he cooked up Ex.P.1 at the scene of offence. He admits the suggestion that similar kind of M.O.1 to 4 are generally available elsewhere. PW1 denies the suggestion that even though accused have not at all committed the alleged offences, he lodged false complaint against them. He denies the suggestion that A5 was not at all present at the scene of offence at the material point of time. However, he took custody of A5, from his house.

10. PW2 Raghavendra.M, PSI deposes with regard to registering the case and lodging of FIR to the Court. PW2 further deposes that he took statement of CW2 to CW7. PW2 also deposes that he recorded voluntary statement of accused in connection with this case, who confessed before him that by holding M.O.1 to M.O.4 they were making preparation to commit dacoity as on the date of incident. PW2 in his cross examination admits the suggestion that 10 S.C.No.77/2016 during the course of investigation he has not all visited the alleged spot. However, he denies the suggestion that he has not at all recorded the statement of witnesses. That apart he denies the suggestion that accused have not at all committed the offences alleged and for statistical purpose he submitted false charge sheet.

11. I have carefully gone through evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is pertinent to note that PW1 is the direct witness and first informant in this case and recovered M.O.1 to M.O.4 under Ex.P.1 from the alleged possession of accused, at the alleged scene of occurrence of event. It is relevant to note that A5 totally denies the case of prosecution. Though PW1 deposes few incriminating circumstances as against the accused, his evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. In my view, on the basis of sole testimony of PW1, it is not at all safe to connect the guilt of A5. More importantly, A5 contends that PW1 has lodged false complaint against him and others and cooked up Ex.P.1 at the police station and 11 S.C.No.77/2016 planted M.O.1 to M.O.4 for the purpose of this case and that apart A5 contends that he was arrested from his house, eventhough he has not at all committed the alleged offences. It is important to note that CW2 and CW3, who being the attesters to Ex.P.1 as well as direct witnesses are not secured in spite of taking coercive steps. Therefore, evidence of CW2 and CW3, is taken as closed. Absolutely prosecution has failed to place any iota of convincing and cogent evidence to bring home the guilt of A5. Prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of A5 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt shall go in favour of A5. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I answer the above points in the "Negative".

12. POINT NO.3 : For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following :

ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., A5 is acquitted of the offences p/u/Sec. 399 and 402 of IPC.

Bail Bond of A5 and his Surety Bond stands cancelled.

Note:- M.O.1 to M.O.3 are ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.O.4 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed, after Appeal period is over.

*** (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 30th day of June, 2016) (N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA) LXV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW-1 K.Srinivasalu PW-2 Raghavendra.M LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 FIR 13 S.C.No.77/2016 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED MO-1 to MO-3 3 knives MO-4 Chilly powder packet LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

(N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA) LXV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.

Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separately ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., A5 is acquitted of the offences p/u/Sec. 399 and 402 of IPC.

Bail Bond of A5 and his Surety Bond stands cancelled.

Note:- M.O.1 to M.O.3 are ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.O.4 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed, after Appeal period is over.

(N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA) LXV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.