Bangalore District Court
State By Sr Nagar Police Station vs Has Been Acquitted For The Above ... on 17 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 17th day of February 2016
Present : Shri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 5673/2014
2.Date of Offence 24-11-2012
3.Complainant State by SR Nagar Police Station
4.Accused Ali Mohammed @ Madi
S/o Ishar Ali, Aged 20 Years,
Residing at 1st Cross, Asukhan
Street, Ramakrishna Garden,
Neelasandra, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained Under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 17-2-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, SR Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused for the
offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
24-11-2012 at 8-00 a.m., this accused along with juvenile
offender by name Mohammed Jafar Sadiq @ Mouli by breaking
2 C.C.No.5673/2014
open the lock of house No.11/11 belonged to complainant
Smt. K.Pushpa, 17th cross, Karagappa garden, SR Nagar,
Bangalore, within the limits of SR Nagar Police Station, broken
open the lock of said house, entered and committed theft of
600 grams of silver articles and 80 grams of gold ornaments
thereby committed aforesaid offences. It appears the
concerned police have filed separate charge sheet against the
juvenile offender before JJB court.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of chargesheet, this
court took cognizance of the offences and furnished the copies
of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charges, this court has framed the charge for the offences
punishable u/s 454 and 380 of IPC., for which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.
4. The prosecution to prove its case got examined seven
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked eight documents at
Exs.P1 to P.8. Since C.Ws.4, 6 to 8, 11, 12, 14 to 16 did not
turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP,
this court dropped the said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court has examined the accused as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
3 C.C.No.5673/2014
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove the guilt
against the accused has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1
Pushpavani.N is the complainant and owner of the recovered
articles. P.W.2 Naveen Kumar is the spot mahazar witness.
P.W.3 Roshan Ali is the seizure mahazar witness. P.W.4
H.R.Gangadhar Naik is the investigating officer who conducted
partial investigation. P.W.5 Urfathullakhan is the police
constable who assisted the investigating officer in conducting
the investigation. P.W.6 Dhananjay is another spot mahazar
witness. P.W.7 Dinesh Chopra is the receiver of stolen
ornaments. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
prosecution has not examined other witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 Pushpavani.N the complainant
indicating that on 24-11-2012 there was theft of silver articles,
gold ornaments and cash in her house by somebody. In this
regard, she lodged complaint to the police as per Ex.P.1. After
lodging of the complaint, the police visited the spot and
prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
9. P.W.2 Naveen Kumar the spot mahzar witness has
corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. His testimony indicating
that on 24-11-2012 SR Nagar police visited the house of P.W.1
pertaining to theft of silver and gold articles prepared the
mahazar and obtained his signature. So also, P.W.4
H.R.Gangadhar Naik the investigating officer has also
corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. His testimony indicating
that on 24-11-2012 he received the complaint from P.W.1
regarding theft of silver and golden ornaments, registered the
4 C.C.No.5673/2014
case, on the same day he visited the spot and prepared the
mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and spot sketch. It appears P.W.6
Dhananjay another spot mahazar witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 though were
subjected to cross examination but nothing worth is elicited
from them to doubt their testimony in the matter of theft of
silver and gold ornaments in the house of P.W.1, lodging of the
complaint, registering of the case and preparing of the spot
mahazar. P.W.6 another spot mahazar witness though not
supported the case of the prosecution I have no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Accordingly, I am
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the
theft of valuable articles from the house of P.W.1 and
preparing of the spot mahazar by the investigation officer.
10. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined the
investigating officer who recovered the silver articles and
golden ornaments belonged to P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.5
Urfathullakhan the police constable indicating that on
31-10-2013 C.W.15 the PSI of his police station deputed him
and C.Ws.10 to 12 his colleagues, to trace the accused and
stolen properties pertaining to crime No.508 of his Ashoknagar
police station. Accordingly, he, C.Ws.10 to 12 was on
patrolling duty near BDA complex, as per the information of
informants, they took the custody of accused and produced
before C.W.15. When he and C.Ws.10 to 12 took the custody
of present accused and another juvenile offender, they found
one black color bag containing laptop, Samsung mobile phone
5 C.C.No.5673/2014
and iron rod with them. Accordingly, they also produced said
properties before C.W.15. On enquiry of present accused and
another by C.W.15 about said properties, they stated that they
committed theft of said laptop and Samsung mobile phone in
the house located at Austin town. Admittedly, the alleged
recovered laptop and Samsung mobile phones not belonged to
this case. No doubt from the evidence of P.W.5, it is seen that
he and C.Ws.10 to 12 arrested the present accused and one
juvenile offender and produced them before C.W.15 for
enquiry, but mere arrest of present accused is not sufficient to
connect him for the offences alleged unless the prosecution
proves seizure mahazar beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. It appears, C.W.15 the PSI of Ashoknagar police
station enquired this accused and juvenile offender. During
the course of said enquiry, the present accused and another
confessed regarding commission of theft of articles in the
house of P.W.1 and alienation of the same to one Bhaskar.
Accordingly, on 3-11-2013 he recovered 80grams of gold
necklace, 600grams of silver articles pertaining to this case.
Unfortunately, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the
prosecution has not examined any witnesses to the seizure
mahazar dated 3-11-2013.
12. In a case like this, the offences has to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar
of seized silver articles and gold ornaments beyond all
reasonable doubt. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined any
6 C.C.No.5673/2014
witnesses to the seizure mahazar dated 3-11-2013. Therefore,
the prosecution has failed to prove seizure mahazar of
recovered silver articles and gold ornament beyond all
reasonable doubt.
13. P.W.7 Dinesh Chopra the circumstantial witness i.e.,
who weighed the recovered silver articles and golden ornament
has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even though
as per the case of the prosecution P.W.7 was present at the
time of seizure mahazar, he has not signed the seizure
mahazar. Moreover, he has not supported the case of the
prosecution. P.W.3 Roshan Ali the seizure mahazar witness of
laptop, Samsung mobile phone and iron rod has not
supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, at the
repetition of cost the said Samsung mobile phone and laptop
are not belonged to this case.
14. As per the case of the prosecution the investigating
officer after recovery of silver articles and golden ornament
pertaining to this case called P.W.1 to the police station got
identified the same and also identified the accused persons
but P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution in the
matter of identification of accused.
15. In my opinion, even though the prosecution to prove
its case has examined seven witnesses, in view of my above
discussion, it has failed to prove the seizure mahazar of seized
articles beyond all reasonable doubt. The other evidence
available on record is only formal one and need not required
7 C.C.No.5673/2014
detailed consideration. Therefore, having regard to the
evidence available on record and the discussions made above,
I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed
to prove guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Pushpavani.N
P.W.2, Naveen Kumar
P.W.3, Roshan Ali
P.W.4, H.R.Gangadhar Naik
P.W.5, Urufathulla Khan
P.W.6, Dhananjaya
P.W.7, Jinesh Chopra @ Jito
8 C.C.No.5673/2014
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Complaint;
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1; Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.4;
Ex.P2 Mahazar;
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1; Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2; Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.6;
Ex.P.3 Photo; Ex.P.4 Statement; Ex.P.5 Mahazar; Ex.P.6 Statement; Ex.P.7 sketch;
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.4;
Ex.P.8 FIR;
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.4;
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.9 C.C.No.5673/2014
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and suety bond stands cancelled.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.