Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs Hanumanta @ Koti S/O Rajappa on 10 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 10th Day of January, 2022
C.C. No.2885/2016
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
Chandra Layout Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
1. Hanumanta @ Koti s/o Rajappa
Age 30 years, R/at No.11
8th Cross, Sanjeevininagar
Mudalapalya, Bengaluru.
2. Ravi @ Gunda s/o Narayanappa
Age 25 years,
3. Ravi s/o Narayanaswamy
Age 25 years,
A.2 & 3 r/at No.10/1 13th Coss,
Kalyananagar, Mudalapalya, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Nagaraj R, Adv.)
2 C.C.No.2885/2016
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 2885/2016
2. The date of commission 02062015 to 03062015
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Sridhar Hegde
4. Name of the accused Hanumantha and others
5. The offence complained of U/s. 380 r/w 34 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused No.1 to 3 are
acquitted
8. Date of such order 10012022
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station has filed the final report against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 380 r/w 34 of IPC.
3 C.C.No.2885/2016
2. The prosecution case is that, on 02062015 at night hours at Vijayanagar West of Chord Road, Bant's Sangha the accused No.1 to 3 have committed theft of two Dell Company Laptops and one HP Company Laptop worth of ₹1,23,000/ belongs to the students residing at ladies hostel of Bant's Sangha. Accordingly, CW1 being the Secretary of said Sangha lodged first information statement before the Chandra Layout Police. The said police have registered the case and issued FIR against the accused. After investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 showing them absconding.
3. This court had taken the cognizance against the accused No.1 to 3 and issued NBW against them. So on 25062018 the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested under warrant and produced before this court and they were remanded to JC. Thereafter 4 C.C.No.2885/2016 they by moving application obtained bail. On 04112019 accused No.3 appeared voluntarily and by moving application obtained the bail. The prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.1 to 3 in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing both the parties, my predecessor in office has framed the charges and explained to the accused No.1 to 3 and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PW.1 to 10 and eight documents have been marked as per Ex.P1 to P8. In spite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured CW10 to 13 and 15 to 18. So, the side of the prosecution was taken as closed.
6. Thereafter, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution 5 C.C.No.2885/2016 witnesses. They denied the same and not chosen to lead their defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determinations are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 02062015 during night hours at Vijayanagar West of Chord Road, Ladies hostel of Bant's Sanga, the accused No.1 to 3 have committed theft of two Dell company Laptops and one HP Company laptop worth of ₹1,23,000/ belongs PW2 to 4 and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 380 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
6 C.C.No.2885/2016
REASONS
9. Points No.1: In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the first informant as PW1, the owner of the stolen laptops as PW2 to 4, spot mahazar witnesses as PW5 and 6, seizure mahazar witnesses as PW7 to 9 and the Head Constable who traced out the accused and produced before the IO as PW10.
10. PW1 being the first informant has stated that during 2014 to 2016 he was working as Honorary Secretary in Banta's Sangha, adjacent to the office of the said Sangha there was BRS Ladies Hostel which was run by his organization. He further deposed that PW2 to 4 were residing in the said hostel and on 02062015 when they kept their laptops near window and slept on the next day morning their laptops were stolen. Accordingly, he lodged first information as per Ex.P1 and 7 C.C.No.2885/2016 thereafter the police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He further deposed that on 23062015 the CCB police have called himself and PW2 to 4 at Gnanabharathi Police Station and shown 3 stolen laptops which were identified by PW2 to 4 and at that time the police have shown accused and said that they have committed theft of said laptops. Thereafter, he has got released the said laptops by executing the Indemnity Bond and the photograph of the said laptops were marked as per Ex.P4. Accordingly he has given his further statement.
11. PW2 to 4 are the owner of the said laptops have stated in the same line as of PW1 and also identified their stolen laptops by seeing the photograph marked at Ex.P4 and stated that they have also given their statements and identified the accused. 8 C.C.No.2885/2016
12. During the cross examination PW1 to 4 have stated that there are Security Guards and Warden appointed in the hostel and there is a compound surrounding the hostel and all the windows have got bolt. They denied that they are seeing the accused for the first time in the court and were deposing falsely against the accused.
13. PW5 and 6 being the witnesses to the spot mahazar have stated that the police have conducted the spot mahazar due to the theft occurred on 03062015 with regard to laptops and they put their signature on Ex.P2 the spot mahazar.
14. During the cross examination they stated that they have not got written the Ex.P2 but they knows its contents. They denied that since PW1 is their friend so in order to help him they were deposing falsely.
9 C.C.No.2885/2016
15. PW7 to 9 being the witnesses to the seizure mahazar have only admitted their signatures on a document which were put at Chandra Layout Police Station about one year back. They further stated that the police have not conducted any mahazar nor seized anything in their presence and they do not know the contents of Ex.P5.
16. Thus, they were treated as hostile and cross examined by Sr. APP at length wherein they denied that on 23062015 the police have seized three laptops from the accused No.1 to 3 accordingly the seizure mahazar was drawn from 9.00 a.m., to 10.00 a.m., as per Ex.P5 in their presence. They also denied for having given their statements before the police as per Ex.P6 to 8 respectively. They denied the suggestion that in order to help the accused they were deposing falsely.
10 C.C.No.2885/2016
17. PW10 being the Head Constable who has traced out the accused as per the order of their higher officer and produced before the CCB Office and gave his report. During the cross examination he denied all the suggestions put to him.
18. In this case, the PW1 being the first informant and PW2 to 4 the owner of the stolen laptops have supported the case and also identified the accused but stated that the police have told them that the accused have stolen their laptops. In this case the witnesses to the spot mahazar have also supported the case.
19. In this type of cases the seizure mahazar plays an important role to prove the case against the accused but PW7 to 9 being the witnesses to the seizure mahazar and have given their alleged statements against the accused No.1 to 3 but they have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. So the 11 C.C.No.2885/2016 prosecution has miserably failed to prove the seizure mahazar which is very material piece of evidence to prove the case against the accused No.1 to 3.
20. Apart from that in this case the prosecution has failed to secure IO despite taking coercive steps. So first up all the witnesses to seizure mahazar have not at all supported the case and the IO has not deposed his evidence, under such circumstances, the evidence available on record will not help the prosecution in proving its case. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused No.1 to 3. As per the settled principle of law the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, I answer the above point in the negative.
12 C.C.No.2885/2016
21. Point No.2: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 380 r/w 34 of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
Interim custody of three laptops shown in PF.No.15/2015 and 16/2015 are made absolute after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 10th day of January 2022.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU 13 C.C.No.2885/2016 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Sridhar Hegde s/o Ramanna Hegde P.W.2 : Aswitha Rai s/o Gopinath Rai P.W.3 : Rashmita Shetty s/o Gundu Shetty P.W.4 : Mahima C Shetty s/o Chandrashekar Shetty P.W.5 : Ananda Shetty s/o Raghurama Shetty P.W.6 : Sujata S Shetty w/o Sathishchandra ShettyE P.W.7 : Ponnuswamy s/o Madaiay P.W.8 : Rajalingam s/o Madhu P.W.9 : Shekar s/o Muniswamy P.W10 : Kantaraju s/o Puttahanumaiah Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : First Information Statement
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW5
Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW6
Ex.P3 : Indemnity Bond
Ex.P4 : Photograph
Ex.P5 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW7
Ex.P5(b) : Signature of PW8
Ex.P5(c) : Signature of PW9
Ex.P6 : Statement of PW7
Ex.P7 : Statement of PW8
14 C.C.No.2885/2016
Ex.P8 : Statement of PW9
Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M., BENGALURU 15 C.C.No.2885/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 380 r/w 34 of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
Interim custody of three laptops shown in PF.No.15/2015 and 16/2015 are made absolute after expiry of appeal period.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.