Bangalore District Court
State By C.K. Acchukattu vs Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal on 1 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 1st day of July 2017
PRESENT
*******
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.1187/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by C.K. Acchukattu
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal
Giri @ Prashanth Raj @
Ashwath
S/o Veeranna Gowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Hosur Village
Moduru Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Govinda @ Govindaraju,
S/o Kempegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Chikkakallya Village,
2 SC.No.1187/2015
Thippasandra Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
3. Srinivasa @ Vasu,
S/o Guligowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.19/B,
Pipeline, Weavers Colony,
Srinagar,
Bangalore.
4. Jagadeesha @ Jaggu,
S/o Srinivasa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Anupanahalli,
Hoodigere Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk & District.
5. Ramdas B. Shet,
S/o Late Beerappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.63, 11th Cross,
Someshwara Jewelers,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
1. Date of Commission : 13.03.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 14.03.2014
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : Accused Nos.1 to 4
are in J.C. and accused
No.5 is on bail
3 SC.No.1187/2015
4. Name of the : Sri.Sudarshan T.S.
complainant
5. Date of :
Commencement of 19.07.2016
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
28.03.2017
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections
397, 411, 413 & 427 of
I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of the charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector, C.K. Acchukattu P.S., Bengaluru City against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 411, 413 and 427 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2014 at about 9.20 p.m. CW.1/Sudarshan after his work in GMS Software Solutions Company 4 SC.No.1187/2015 situated at 3rd Main, Banashankari passing on Attimabbe Road in his Car bearing No.KA-04-MH-1912. At that time totally four persons came on two Bajaj Pulsar motor cycles and suddenly shown the long and they have damaged the glass of the car. Out of four persons three of them were wearing monkey cap and another was wearing helmet. After damaging the car one of them shown long to Sudarshan, given threat and thereby snatched two golden finger rings, one golden chain and one golden bracelet totally weighing 130 grams worth of Rs.4,00,000/-. Thereafter, when those persons were running away, again they have attacked CW.2/Ramakrishna and by giving threat golden chain weighing 20 grams has been snatched from CW.2 and all those four persons went away. Since there was night CW.1 and 2 did not inform the incident to the police and on the next day CW.1/Sudarshan went to C.K. Acchukattu P.S. and reported the matter in writing. Based on such information the Police registered the crime 5 SC.No.1187/2015 for the offence under Section 392 against unknown persons on 14.03.2014 at 10.00 a.m. and launched the investigation.
3. It has been contended by the prosecution that Byatarayanapura Police registered crime No.171/2014 on 16.04.2014 against many accused including accused Nos.1 to 4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 399, 402, 353 of IPC and under Section 25, 3 of Indian Arms Act, 1969 and some accused were arrested. The Investigating Officer CW.32/Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana who was the Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura P.S. found that accused Nos.1 to 4 herein were involved in Crime No.171/14. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city formed team headed by CW.32 to nab the accused Nos.1 to 4 and other accused in the above said crime. Accordingly, the CW.32 and his team members went to Hindupura, Andhrapradesh wherein the accused Nos.1 to 4 stayed in the house of Krupakara Reddy and conducted 6 SC.No.1187/2015 raid in that house on 18.05.2014. The CW.32 arrested accused Nos.2 to 4 in that house on 18.05.2014 and when he was taking the accused to Bengaluru city and within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli, the accused No.2/Govind tried to escape and therefore, there was a firing and in that regard criminal case has been registered against him in Crime No.46/14 of Devanahalli P.S. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 5 were also arrested on 02.06.2014 and 04.06.2014 respectively in Crime No.171/14. The accused no.1 given his voluntary statement on 03.06.2014, accused No.3/Srinivas and accused No.4/Jagadish given their voluntary statement on 18.05.2014 and accused No.2/Govind given his voluntary statement on 05.07.2014. Even the accused no.5 given his voluntary statement on 04.06.2014 before CW.32. Based on such voluntary statements, the CW.32 taken the accused Nos.1 and 5 to Manjunath Jewellery and he has recovered golden chain of Sudarshan from CW.12 7 SC.No.1187/2015 Mahendra by drawing Panchanama on 05.06.2014. It is the allegation of the prosecution that CW.34/B.K. Shekar, Police Inspector of C.K. Acchukattu P.S. requested the learned magistrate to issue body warrant against the accused Nos.2 to 4, taken the accused Nos.2 to 4 into his custody on 07.01.2015. The accused Nos.2 to 4 have given their voluntary statement before CW.34 and based on such voluntary statement CW.34 taken the accused Nos.1 to 4 to the house of accused No.2 situated at Chikkalya Village and seized two golden chains, one golden bracelet and two golden finger rings by drawing Panchanama in the presence of Karthik and Suresh who are the panch witnesses. Based on such recovery the prosecution has contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed robbery, snatched the golden ornaments of CW.1 and 2 and thereafter those ornaments were sold to accused no.5 and the accused no.5 sold one golden chain in Manjunatha Jewellery. It has been contended that 8 SC.No.1187/2015 accused no.5 was habitually receiving the stolen properties from accused Nos.1 to 4. On these allegations the charge sheet came to be filed.
4. The charge sheet was registered in C.C.no.9911/15 on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru and the learned magistrate secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 by issuing body warrant. The accused no.5 was released on bail. The learned magistrate committed the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offence under Section 397, 411, 413 and 427 of IPC are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. After committal the accused Nos.1 to 5 engaged their advocates. The accused no.5 is on bail and the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 has been secured by issuing body warrant and till today the accused Nos.1 to 4 are in J.C. of other cases.
5. After hearing both sides charge has been framed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence 9 SC.No.1187/2015 under Sections 397 and 427 of IPC. The charge has been framed against the accused No.5 for the offence under Section 411 & 413 of IPC. The accused No.1 to 5 have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PW.s 1 to 10 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.26. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. who have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The accused have not adduced any evidence in their defence.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
8. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the following points arise for my determination: 10 SC.No.1187/2015
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.03.2014 at
9.20 p.m. near corner road, Bata Showroom at Attimabbe road, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 4 committed robbery of gold ornaments from the possession of CW.1-Sudarshan T.S. and CW.2/Ramakrishna, by showing deadly weapon and thereby committed the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date that the accused Nos.1 to 4 caused damage to the Car bearing No.KA-04-MH-1912 of P.W.3/Sudarshan and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence of mischief under Section 427 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date after committing robbery the accused No.1 to 4 sold the above said golden ornaments to the accused No.5 and the 11 SC.No.1187/2015 accused No.5 dishonestly received the golden ornaments knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 411 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving or dealing with properties from accused Nos.1 to 4 knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 413 of IPC?
5. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 to 4 :- In the Negative
POINT No.5 :- As per final order
for the following,
REASONS
10. Point No.1 & 2 :- The P.W.1/Ramakrishna and P.W.3/Sudarshan are the victims. P.W.2/Manjunath and 12 SC.No.1187/2015 P.W.4/Bhaskar are the panch witnesses to the scene of Panchanama produced at Ex.P.2. P.W.5/Mahendra is the owner of Manjunath Jewellery. P.W.6 is one of the panch witnesses to the Panchanama drawn in Crime No.171/2014. P.W.8/Balegowda is one of the members f team headed by P.W.9/K.P. Sathyanarayana formed in Crime No.171/14. P.W.7 and 10 are the Investigating Officers.
11. The P.W.1 has stated that at about 9.15 p.m. he was passing near Devegowda Petrol Bunk about 2 years back and at that time two persons attacked him and snatched golden chain. He has stated that because of the apprehension, he could not go to the Police station on the very day and later on he went to the station and reported the matter. He has also stated that after six months from the date of the incident, the Police called him to the station and shown his golden chain which was snatched and thereafter he filed application before the court and 13 SC.No.1187/2015 obtained the order for interim custody of the golden chain marked at M.O.1. He has also stated that he has not taken the golden chain at M.O.1 by complying the order of the court. The P.W.1 not able to identify the culprits including the accused Nos.1 to 4. Even P.W.1 has denied the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 when the alleged robbery was committed in the cross-examination conducted by the prosecution.
12. P.W.3 has stated that he is working in GMS Software Solutions complainant situated at Attimabbe and on 13.03.2014 at about 9.15 p.m. he was proceeding towards his car where the car was parked near the Office and at that time four persons attacked on him. He has also stated that three of them were wearing monkey cap and all those persons damaged his car with longs. He has also stated that four persons given threat to him by showing deadly weapons and asked to handover the golden ornaments worn by him. He stated that he handed 14 SC.No.1187/2015 over one golden chain, one bracelet and two golden finger rings weighing worth of Rs.4,00,000/- to those four persons. He states that those four persons were proceeding towards Western side. They saw Ramakrishna/P.W.1 and they have attacked on Ramakrishna and thereby snatched another golden chain of Ramakrishna. The P.W.3 has stated that as there was a night, he could not inform the incident to the Police and on the next day he went to the Police station and filed the report at Ex.P.3. According to the evidence of P.W.3 the Police came to the spot, drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2. The P.W.3 has deposed that three months after the incident Byatarayanapura Police called him and shown his golden ornaments. He has also stated that those ornaments are appearing in the photographs at Ex.P.4 to
7. He has identified the photographs of his damaged car produced at Ex.P.8 to P.11. The P.W.3 further deposed that Police shown three persons who have committed 15 SC.No.1187/2015 robbery on him. Again he has stated that at the second time C.K. Acchukattu Police called him to the station and shown three accused who have committed robbery on him. But when the accused Nos.1 to 4 were shown to the P.W.3 during his evidence, P.W.3 has denied their identity and not able to identify the accused Nos.1 to 4.
13. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 the defence has denied the robbery of chain and even suggested that chain at M.O.1 does not belong to P.W.1. But the P.W.1 has categorically stated that there was robbery and in that robbery his golden chain was taken away by four accused persons. The defence not cross-examined the P.W.3. Therefore, the entire statements made by P.W.3 referred above is not challenged by the accused. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 & 3, I hold that the prosecution has established the robbery on 13.03.2014 at about 9.20 p.m. near Bata Showroom situated at Atthimabbe road, Banashankari, Bengaluru by four persons on P.W.1 and 16 SC.No.1187/2015 P.W.3 and those four persons by showing deadly weapons and by giving threat to P.W.1 and 3, stolen golden chain, golden bracelet and two golden finger rings of P.W.2 and one golden chain of P.W.1.
14. The P.W.2 and 4 have admitted their signature on Panchanama at Ex.P.2. This Panchanama was drawn on 14.03.2014 in the scene of offence. The P.W.2 has stated that his signature was taken near Bata Showroom and Devegowda Petrol Bunk. The P.W.4 has also spoken to the fact that the Police came to Devegowda Petrol bunk near Bata Showroom and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2. The P.W.2 has denied the contents of Panchanama. The defence has not cross-examined the P.W.2 and thereby not denied the presence of police and two panch witnesses on the spot for drawing of Panchanama at Ex.P.2. Though the evidence of P.W.4 has been denied by the defence, his statement clearly shows 17 SC.No.1187/2015 that police came to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2
15. The P.W.7 was the Police Sub-Inspector working in C.K. Acchukattu Police station as on 14.03.2014 and he has deposed the registration of first information at Ex.P.3 given by P.W.3 and registration of the FIR produced at Ex.P.17. He has also deposed that he went to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2 in presence of P.W.2 & 4. This part of evidence of P.W.7 is also not discredited in the cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and 7 clearly show that on the next day of the incident the P.W.3 went to the Police station and filed first information at Ex.P.3. Based on such information P.W.7 has registered the FIR at Ex.P.17 and went to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2 in the presence of panch witnesses. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has proved the Panchanama at Ex.P.2 and the spot shown in the Panchanama.
18 SC.No.1187/2015
16. The incident took place at about 4.20 p.m. on 13.03.2014 and whereas the information at Ex.P.3 was given by P.W.3 on 14.03.2014 at 10.00 a.m. Even the P.W.1 went to the Police station on 15.03.2014 to give his report produced at Ex.P.1. On perusal of these two documents and the evidence of P.W.1, 3 and 7, there appears the delay in registration of the FIR. Whether such delay has been explained by the prosecution has to be seen.
17. The P.W.1 in his statement has stated that because of the robbery he was scared and therefore, he did not go to the police station. The P.W.3 in Ex.P.3 has stated that the robbery was in the night and therefore, he did not report the matter in the night on 13.03.201. These explanations given by P.W.1 and 3 appears to be reasonable. Therefore, even though there is delay in reporting the matter to the police and registration of the FIR, such delay does not create any doubt. Apart from 19 SC.No.1187/2015 that there is no material placed on record by the defence that delay has been caused to create false story either by P.W.1 or by P.W.3. Hence, I hold that the delay in registration of the FIR is satisfactorily explained and such delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
18. From the discussion made above, I hold that there was a robbery on 13.03.2014 at about 9.20 p.m. by four culprits and in that robbery golden ornaments of P.W.1 and 3 were stolen. Such thing has been reported to the Police and the Police rushed to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2. Even the evidence referred above is sufficient to hold that in the robbery the culprits have damaged the car of P.W.3 and thereby committed the offence of mischief.
19. According to the prosecution the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the robbery and mischief and whether such allegation has been proved is the matter for 20 SC.No.1187/2015 consideration. To prove such allegation the prosecution relied upon the voluntary statement said to be given by accused Nos.1 to 5 before P.W.9/K.P. Sathyanarayana and recovery of one golden chain of P.W.3/Sudarshan under the Panchanama at Ex.P.12 from the P.W.5. Further, the prosecution has relied upon the voluntary statement said to be given by accused Nos.1 to 4 produced at Ex.P.20 to P.23 and seizure of golden ornaments under Panchanama at Ex.P.24 which was said to be conducted in the house of accused No.2. If the prosecution is able to prove these voluntary statements and seizure Panchanamas, then only the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 397 and 427 of IPC. Whether the prosecution has proved all these allegations has to be looked into.
20. The P.W.9/K.P. Sathyanarayana said to recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.171/14 of Byatarayanapura P.S. and drawn Panchanama at Ex.P.12 and thereby recovered golden 21 SC.No.1187/2015 chain of Sudarshan. The P.W.9 appeared before the court and given his part of examination-in-chief. Thereafter, the P.W.9 did not submit for his further examination-in- chief or for the cross-examination. Therefore, his evidence came to be rejected and hence, no evidentiary value can be attached to the part of examination-in-chief of P.W.9. Thus, there is no evidence of P.W.9 to prove the fact of voluntary statement and alleged recovery under Ex.P.12.
21. According to the Panchanama at Ex.P.12. G.N.J. Rudra Prasad and Pramod Kumar B.P. were present at the time of seizure in Manjunatha Jewellery and P.W.5 handed over golden chain to Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana. The P.W.5 has denied the purchase of golden chain from accused no.5 and recovery of such chain by P.W.9 under Panchanama at Ex.P.12. The prosecution not examined G.N.J. Rudra Prasad and Pramod Kumar B.P. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove Ex.P.12 and 22 SC.No.1187/2015 seizure of golden chain of Sudarshan from the possession of P.W.5. Thus, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove that on the basis of information given by accused Nos.1 to 4 discovery was made regarding the sale of stolen properties and such stolen properties have been seized under Ex.P.12 from P.W.5. Therefore, initially the prosecution failed to connect the accused Nos.1 to 5 with the robbery.
22. The P.W.10 in his evidence has stated that on 21.08.2014 he received records from Byatarayanapura P.S. relating to present case along with one golden chain weighing 45 grams. He states that he requested the court to issue body warrant against the accused Nos.1 to 4 who were in J.C. in Crime No.171/14 of Byatarayanapura P.S. and taken the accused Nos.1 to 4 into his custody. He states that on 17.01.2015 he interrogated accused Nos.1 to 4 and the accused Nos.1 to 4 have given their voluntary statements produced at Ex.P.20 to P.23 and thereby 23 SC.No.1187/2015 discovered the fact that the stolen properties of P.W.1 and 3 were kept in the house of accused No.2. He states that on the basis of disclosure made by accused Nos.1 to 4 he went to Chikkalya Village along with accused Nos.1 to 4, panch witnesses by name Karthik and Suresh. He states that accused no.2 went inside his house and brought two golden chain, one golden bracelet and two golden finger rings which were kept in Almirah. Therefore, the P.W.1 has seized those properties by drawing Panchanama at Ex.P.24 between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. This part of evidence of P.W.10 has been denied by the accused. In the cross-examination the P.W.10 has stood for his statements referred above.
23. In Ex.P.20 to P.23 there are voluntary statements said to be given by the accused Nos.1 to 4 and there is disclosure about keeping of stolen properties in the house of accused no.2. Such part of statements are admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and 24 SC.No.1187/2015 accordingly part of the statements are accepted in the evidence. In Ex.P.24 it has been shown that two golden chains, one golden bracelet and two golden finger rings were recovered in the house of accused No.2.
24. In order to prove the seizure under Ex.P.24, the evidence of panch witnesses is material. Unfortunately both panch witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. It is on record that many criminal cases of robbery and dacoity have been registered against the accused Nos.1 to 5 herein. About 18 cases are being tried by this Court. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of panch witnesses, it is very hard to believe the evidence of P.W.10 alone for the proof of seizure under Ex.P.24. Thus, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of golden ornaments shown in Ex.P.24 at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4 or from the possession of accused No.2. For 25 SC.No.1187/2015 these reasons I hold that again the prosecution failed to connect the alleged robbery with the accused Nos.1 to 5.
25. The prosecution has got marked the statement of P.W.3/Sudarshan at Ex.P.14, 15 and 16 dated 05.06.2014, 06.07.2014 and 10.01.2015 respectively. In Ex.P.14 it has been shown that Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana called P.W.3 to the Police Station and shown the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and thereby the P.W.3 has identified those accused. In Ex.P.15 it has been shown that again Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana called P.W.3 to the Police Station on 06.07.2014 and shown accused No.2/Govind and the P.W.3 has identified him. These two statements are denied and contradicted by P.W.3. To prove these statements the evidence of P.W.9/K.P. Sathyanarayana is necessary and P.W.9 not given his complete evidence. Therefore, the statements at Ex.P.14 and P.15 are not sufficient to believe that after the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 4, P.W.9/K.P. Sathyanarayana called P.W.3 for the 26 SC.No.1187/2015 purpose of identification and P.W.3 has identified the accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Police Station.
26. In Ex.P.16 it has been shown that on 10.01.2015 the P.W.10 called P.W.3 to C.K. Acchukattu Police Station and shown accused Nos.1 to 4. This statement has been denied by P.W.3. The P.W.10 has spoken to the fact that he called P.W.3 and shown accused Nos.1 to 4 on 10.01.10215. Such statement has been denied by the defence. When the P.W.3 is denying his own statement at Ex.P.16, the statement of P.W.10 creates doubt. Therefore, the statement of P.W.10 is not sufficient to prove that he called P.W.3 to the Police Station for the purpose of identification and the P.W.3 has identified the accused Nos.1 to 4.
27. Even before the court neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 who are the material witnesses and victims of the crime not identified the accused Nos.1 to 4. When they have 27 SC.No.1187/2015 not identified the accused Nos.1 to 4 before the court, the story of the prosecution that earlier they have identified the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Byatarayanapura P.S. and C.K. Acchukattu Police Station is unbelievable. The Investigating Officer/P.W.10 or the P.W.9 not taken any steps to conduct the T.I.P. under Section 9 of Evidence Act. Such test is required for the reason that incident took place in the night and the assailants were covered their face. Therefore, non-conducting of T.I.P. is fatal to the case of prosecution. For these reasons also I hold that the prosecution has failed to connect the alleged robbery and mischief to the accused Nos.1 to 4 and they have sold the stolen property to the accused no.5.
28. The evidence of P.W.6/panch witness is relating to seizure Panchanama in Crime No.171/2014 which is not material to the present case. Even the evidence of P.W.8/Balegowda is relating to arrest of accused Nos.2 to 4 and registration of the case against accused No.2 in 28 SC.No.1187/2015 Devanahalli Police Station. Such evidence is also not material and therefore, there is no necessity to discuss their evidence in detail. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative.
29. POINT NO.3 & 4 : There is an allegation against the accused No.5 that he received the golden chain of Sudarshan from the accused Nos.1 to 4 knowing that the golden chain was stolen property. Further there is an allegation that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving the stolen properties. In order to prove such allegation again the prosecution relied upon the evidence discussed above. It is concluded that there is no evidence on record to believe that accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed robbery on Sudarshan and snatched the golden ornaments. It is also concluded that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 have sold the golden ornaments to accused No.5 and at the instance of accused No.5 the ornaments have been recovered. The 29 SC.No.1187/2015 P.W.10 has stated that the accused No.5 was receiving the stolen properties. Such statement is not supported with any material. Therefore, absolutely no evidence is produced to prove the allegation made against the accused No.5. Thus, I hold that the accused No.5 is not guilty for the offence under Section 411 or under Section 413 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative.
30. Point No.5- Before concluding order relating to the disposal of the property seized in the case has to be passed. Under Ex.P.12 one golden chain relating to this case was recovered by Byatarayanapura Police and it was transferred to C.K.Acchukattu Police Station. That chain has been handed over to P.W.3/Sudarshan as per the order passed by the learned magistrate and such fact has been admitted by P.W.3. Under Ex.P.24 two golden chains, two golden finger rings and one golden bracelet were seized. The P.W.3 and 10 have deposed that one 30 SC.No.1187/2015 golden chain, bracelet and two golden rings shown in Ex.P.24 were given to the interim custody of P.W.3/Sudarshan. The P.W.3 is entitled to receive the golden chain, golden bracelet and two golden finger rings and accordingly he has received those properties as per the order passed by the learned magistrate. Such order to be made absolute.
31. The learned magistrate passed order to release M.O.1/golden chain to the interim custody of P.W.1/Ramakrishna by imposing certain conditions. The P.W.1 has not received M.O.1 till today by complying the conditions. It is on record that M.O.1 belong to P.W.1 and therefore, it has to be released to P.W.1.
32. Under Ex.P.24 golden chain weighing 20 grams has been seized and such property has been produced before the court. That chain is not relating to the robbery reported in this case. Neither the prosecution nor the witnesses disclosed to which case this chain relating to. 31 SC.No.1187/2015 The chain weighing 20 grams has not been claimed by anybody till this date. Therefore, the chain having weight of 20 grams has to be confiscated to the State. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397, 427 of IPC and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 & 413 of IPC.
The accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.5 and his surety stands cancelled.
Interim order for release of
golden chain, bracelet, two finger
32 SC.No.1187/2015
rings in favour of
P.W.3/Sudarshan and golden chain
produced at M.O.1 in favour of
P.W.1/Ramakrishna is hereby
made absolute.
It is further ordered to
confiscate the golden chain
weighing 20 grams shown in
P.F.No.6/15 dated 10.01.2015 in
Sl.No.3 to the State.
Issue intimation to jail
authority accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July 2017).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for prosecution:
PW 1 Ramakrishna
PW.2 Manjunath
P.W.3 Sudarshan T.S.
33 SC.No.1187/2015
P.W.4 Bhaskar
P.W.5 Mahendra
P.W.6 M.R. Chandrashekar
P.W.7 H.R. Narayan
P.W.8 Balegowda
P.W.9 K.P. Sathyanarayana
P.W.10 B.K. Shekar
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a)to (c) Signatures
Ex.P.3 Complaint
Ex.P.4 to 7 Photographs
Ex.P.8 to 11 Photographs
Ex.P.12 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.5
Encumbrance Seizure mahazar
certificate.13
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.14 to 16 Statements of P.W.3
Ex.P.17 FIR
Ex.P.18 Complaint by Balegowda
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.19 Mahazar
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.20 Voluntary statement
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.21 Voluntary statement
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.21(b) Thumb impression of
Govindaraju
Ex.P.21(c) Signature
Ex.P.22, 23 Voluntary statements
34 SC.No.1187/2015
Ex.P.22(a) & Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.23(a)
Ex.P.22(b) & LTM of Srinivasa &
23(b) Jagadish
Ex.P.24 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.25, 26 Photographs
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 1 golden chain
List of witnesses examined for defence: - NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
35 SC.No.1187/2015Accused Nos.1 to 4 produced through V.C. Accused No.5 present.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate detailed judgment) with the following operative portion:
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397, 427 of IPC and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 & 413 of IPC.36 SC.No.1187/2015
The accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.5 and his surety stands cancelled.
Interim order for release of golden chain, bracelet, two finger rings in favour of P.W.3/Sudarshan and golden chain produced at M.O.1 in favour of P.W.1/Ramakrishna is hereby made absolute.
It is further ordered to confiscate the golden chain weighing 20 grams shown in P.F.No.6/15 dated 10.01.2015 in Sl.No.3 to the State.
Issue intimation to jail
authority accordingly.
(B.B. Jakati)
LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.