Bangalore District Court
State By vs Murugan @ Shiva Kumar S/O.Late Nagaiah on 7 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 07th day of June 2022
PRESENT: Sri.Kumara.S,
B.A., LL.B.,
XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.53001/2016
Complainant - State by, Police Inspector
Banaswadi Police Station
Represented by Ld.Sr.APP
/vs/
Accused 1. Murugan @ Shiva Kumar S/o.late Nagaiah,
48 yrs. R/a.Sira thopu, Baby Talkies Road,
Tamil Nadu - Reported as dead, hence
case against A.1 is abated.
3. Suresh S/o.Paneer Selvam r/a.No.226-F,
Sira Thopu, Baby Talkies road, Tiravarur
Road, Tamil Nadu.
Represented by Sri.TGS, Advocate
Date of : 13.03.2015
commission of
the offence
Date of report : 16.03.2015
of the offence
Date of arrest : --
of accused
Date of : 03.06.2016
released of
accused on bail
Name of the : M. Manjunath
complainant
2 CC No.53001/2016
Date of : 14.01.2022
commencement
of recording of
evidence
Date of Closure : 28.03.2022
of evidence
Offences : 454-380 of IPC
alleged
Opinion of the : The accused No.3 found not guilty
judge
(KUMARA. S)
XI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
1. The P.I of Banaswadi police station has filed this charge- sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/S.454 and 380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under:-
That on 13/3/2015 at about 5.10 PM when wife of CW.1 left the house by locking the house at No.T-20, Navya Needhi Apartment, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross, Chikkabanaswadi, at that time accused persons have lurking trespass into the said house of CW.1 by pushing forcibly window door and committed theft of 98.5 grams gold ornaments worth Rs.2.20 Lakhs, 3 watches, cash of Rs.6,500/- and car key 3 CC No.53001/2016 belonging to the CW.1, thereby committed the alleged offences, hence this charge-sheet.
3. This charge-sheet is filed against A1 and 3 since A2 is absconded and a separate charge-sheet filed against him, and during the course of trial, accused No.1 was reported to be dead, hence case against A.1 is abated and this case is continued against the accused No.3 only.
4. The accused was earlier produced before the court, through Body warrant as he was in judicial custody in some other case, and he was represented by the counsel. I.O., after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet against accused for the alleged offences. Cognizance was taken for the alleged offences. The prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused through his counsel as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Heard regarding charge. Charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused in the Kannada language known to him, he pleaded not guilty offences and claimed trail.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined 3 witnesses as Pws.1 to 3 and got marked 3 documents at Ex.P1 to P3. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that, Inspite of repeated 4 CC No.53001/2016 issuance of process to CW-5 to 15 who are the seizure mahazar witnesses and investigation officers, they are not secured by the prosecution, hence this court have dropped the remaining witnesses. The statement of accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence available against him and he did not choose to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Learned Sr. APP for the state and learned counsel for the accused No.3 and perused the prosecution papers:
7. The following points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that That on 13/3/2015 at about 5.10 PM when wife of CW.1 left the house by locking the house at No.T-20, Navya Needhi Apartment, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross, Chikkabanaswadi, at that time accused No.3 along with other accused has lurking trespass into the said house of CW.1 by window door and thereby committed the offence punishable u/S.454 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said place, date and time accused No.3 along with other accused committed theft of 98.5 grams gold ornaments worth Rs.2.20 Lakhs, 3 watches, cash of Rs.6,500/- and car key belonging to 5 CC No.53001/2016 CW.1, thereby committed the offence punishable u/S.380 of IPC?
3. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - In the Negative, Point No.2 - In the Negative, Point No.3 - As per final order, for the following;
REAS O NS
9. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: In order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, these points are taken together for common discussion and consideration.
The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused in all examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to 3.
10. PW1-Mariya Rathnam is complainant, she supported the prosecution case in her chief-examination evidence and deposed that, theft of golden ornaments worth Rs.2.20 Lakhs, 3 watches, cash of Rs.6,500/- and car key for my house by the unknow persons, when they are gone through factory work and in this regard she lodged the complaint, thereafter police have come to the house of the complainant and conducted the panchanama in the presence of pancha witness and also stated that, on 12.12.2015 the police have 6 CC No.53001/2016 called her at police station and handed over to 70 grams of golden ornaments to her, they have shown one Murugan and other persons by saying that, said persons committed the theft in the house and she have identified her ornaments in Ex.P3 in photographs.
11. In the cross-examination by the accused counsel, she stated that door of the house was not broken and lock of the door was also not opened and accused have committed the theft from window, she also admits that, said fact is not stated in her complaint and also admits panchas witnesses are her neighbors and remaining cross- examination of the accused counsel is denial of the prosecution case.
12. Though, she has deposed about theft of golden ornaments and other articles from her house but her evidence is not convincing regarding the alleged offences committed by the accused. She identified one Murugan and other two persons only on the say of the police, and even police have not seized any articles from the possession of the accused in the presence of the complainant under seizure panchanama. Therefore her evidence is not convincing regarding the alleged offences committed by the accused.
13. PW-2 Karthikeyan is spot pancha witnesses has deposed about spot panchanama conducted by the police in the house of the 7 CC No.53001/2016 complainant. The cross-examination of the accused counsel is denial of the prosecution case.
14. PW-3 Yuvarani is said to be spot pancha witness, she also supported the prosecution case by deposing that, police have conducted spot panchanama at the house of the complainant, where alleged offences was committed. The cross-examination of the accused counsel is denial of the prosecution case.
15. Ex.P1 is complaint, Ex.P2 spot Panchanama wherein police have conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas in the house of the complainant where alleged offences was committed.
16. On perusal of the case records, CW-5 & 6 are material witnesses who are the seizure mahazar witnesses under whom police have allegedly seized the stolen articles from the possession of the accused persons but the prosecution has not examined the said material witnesses. Therefore, the non examination of the material witnessess is proved fatal to the prosecution case. Unless and until the prosecution is examined the seizure mahazar witnesses, it cannot be said Mahazar has been proved. Therefore, the prosecution has not established that, the stolen articles were seized from the possession of the accused under seizure panchanama. Therefore, seizure mahazar is 8 CC No.53001/2016 not proved. Further CW-12 to 15 are said to be Investigation officers and police official witnesses, their presence was also not secured by the prosecution and all are not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, non examination of the Investigation Officers is also proved fatal to the prosecution case.
17. Therefore, on going through the entire prosecution case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused No. 3 beyond all reasonable doubt, since the seizure mahazar witnesses not examined and seizure mahazar not been proved by the prosecution, therefore the prosecution failed to prove Point No. 1 and 2, accordingly I have answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
18. POINT NO.3: For the reasons assigned and finding given on the above point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/S.454 and 380 of IPC.
2. The bail bonds of the accused NO.3 and his surety bonds if any shall stand canceled and accused No.3 is set at liberty forthwith.
9 CC No.53001/2016
3. Since accused No.3 was produced under body warrant, intimate to jail authorities to release accused No.3, if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on 07th Day of June 2022).
(KUMARA. S) XI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE-I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 Mariya Rathnam PW.2 Karthikeyan. PW.3 Yuvarani.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defence:
Ex.P1 Complaint. Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 Mahazar. Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P3 Photos.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defence:
- Nil -
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence:
- Nil -1 CC No.53001/2016 0
List of Material objects marked for the prosecution:
- Nil -
(KUMARA. S) XI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.1 CC No.53001/2016 1
(Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide a separate Order) ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/S.454 and 380 of IPC.
2. The bail bonds of the accused NO.3 and his surety bonds if any shall stand canceled and accused No.3 is set at liberty forthwith.
3. Since accused No.3 was produced under body warrant, intimate to jail authorities to release accused No.3, if he is not required in any other case.
(KUMARA. S) XI A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
1 CC No.53001/20162