Bangalore District Court
State By Banashankari Police vs Jabiuddin @ Jaibuddin @ Tabrez on 30 July, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 30th day of July, 2020
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.276/2018
COMPLAINANT:- State by Banashankari Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Jabiuddin @ Jaibuddin @ Tabrez,
S/o. Mohammed Nooruddin,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at.No.26-1. 1st Floor,
5th Cross, 5th Stage, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
2. Arun Kumar @ Aruna,
S/o. Gangappa,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at.No.135, Sri Bairava Nilaya,
Behind St. Mary School,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
2
S.C.No.276/2018
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.6.2017
2. Date of report of offence : 15.6.2017
3. Date of arrest of the Accused :
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Parameshwaran Divga
5. Date of recording evidence : 10.9.2018
6. Date of closing evidence : 8.8.2019
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.397 R/w.Sec.
34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/s.392 of I.P.C.
against Accused
No.1 and 2 proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by :Sri. Nagaraja S.A. Adv. for A.1.
Sri. Ranganath Reddy R.
Adv. for A.2.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Banashankari police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.187/2017. 3
S.C.No.276/2018
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; 2.1) On 15.6.2017 evening at 6.30 p.m., Cw.1/ Parameshwaran Cw.2/Usha were on their evening walk on 1 st Main Road, 2nd Stage, R.K.Layout, Padmanabhanagara, Bengaluru city. Accused No.1/ Jaibuddin @ Jabiuddhi @ Tabrezz and accused No.2 Arun Kumar @ Aruna came on two wheeler, snatched 50 grams weighing gold chain worn by Cw.2/Usha on her neck. Accused No.1/ Jaibuddin @ Jabiuddhi @ Tabrez and accused No.2 Arun Kumar @ Aruna had shown knife to threaten Cw.2, when she screamed and ran away on their two wheeler thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed offence punishable U/s.397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
2.2) On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, conducted spot panchanama, prepared sketch of the place of occurrence recorded statements of the panch witnesses, witnesses having acquainted with the facts of the case. 4
S.C.No.276/2018 2.3) Jayanagar police arrested accused No.1/ Jaibuddin @ Jabiuddhi @ Tabrez and accused No.2 Arun Kumar @ Aruna in their Cr.No.116/2017. During the course of custodial interrogation, accused No.1/ Jaibuddin @ Jabiuddhi @ Tabrez and accused No.2 Arun Kumar @ Aruna revealed their involvement in several offences of chain snatching. They disclosed their involvement in the chain snatching of Cw.2/Smt. Usha of this case also. Taking them into custody, investigating officer summoned complainant and her husband, to identify the accused persons, two wheeler and their gold chain. Investigation Officer recorded statement, further statement of complainant and his wife. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.
3. Cognizance for the offence shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned 5 S.C.No.276/2018 Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C.No.382/2018 on the file of III- Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Accused were in judicial custody. Since offence alleged against accused is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to this court. After committal, this case is re- registered as S.C.No.276/2018.
4. After hearing, on 27.8.2018, charge against accused No.1 and 2 framed, which they denied and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the ingredients of the offence leveled against the accused, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.11, got exhibited 21 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and got identified one material object at Mo.1.
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the 6 S.C.No.276/2018 evidence of the prosecution were explained to the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements. Accused denied all incriminating circumstances, evidence found in the prosecution side evidence. Accused have not produced any documents, materials on their behalf. Further no defence evidence led by the accused side.
7. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused.
8. Now, points arising for determination are :
1 Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 15.6.2017 evening at 6.30 p.m., Cw.1/ Parameshwaran, Cw.2/Usha were on their walking on 1 st Main Road, 2nd Stage, R.K.Layout, Padmanabhanagara, Bengaluru city, accused No.1/ Jaibuddin @ Jabiuddhi @ Tabrez and accused No.2 Arun Kumar @ Aruna snatched 50 grams weighing gold chain worn by Cw.2/Usha on her neck.
Accused No.1 and 2 had shown knife to threat Cw.2, when she screamed and ran away on 7 S.C.No.276/2018 their two wheeler thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed offence punishable U/s.397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
2 What Order ?
9. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- Charge leveled against the
accused person in this case is robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. To know whether prosecution succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, we have to go through the evidence adduced by witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution. 8
S.C.No.276/2018 10.1) Pw.1/Cw.1/R.Parameshwaran is the complainant in this case. In his evidence Pw.1 deposed that, since last 28 years, he is residing at Padmanabhanagar along with his wife Cw.2/K.R.Usha. About one year ago, evening at 6.30 p.m., when he and his wife Cw.2/K.R.Usha were on their evening walk towards Park at 1st Stage of Radhakrishna Layout, Padmanabhanagara, by the end of the road near Janani Clinic, two persons came on Pulsur two wheeler. They snatched gold mangalya chain worn by Cw.2/K.R.Usha on her neck. He and public chased those chain snatchers. He noted the registration number of the two wheeler brought by them, but chain snatchers escaped from. He had given complaint to Banashankari police station. Police came to the spot. He had shown the spot of incident to the police. He signed to the panchanama prepared by the police on the spot. Pw.1 identified complaint, panchanama and his signatures on complaint and panchanama. 9
S.C.No.276/2018 10.2) After lapse of some days, Jayanagara police called him and Cw.2/K.R.Usha to the police station. They asked Cw.2/K.R.Usha to identify whether her chain is in the seized gold chains. He and Cw.2/K.R.Usha identified, and had taken to gold chain into their interim custody. Pw.1 identified gold chain displayed in the photos at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Within a month from the date of incident, Jayanagara police called him with Cw.2 to police station and asked them to participate in the Test Identification Parade to be conducted in Parappana Agrahara. Accordingly, they went to Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara Central Prison and identified the accused persons. Pw.1 identified the accused, who produced before the court through Video conference as the same accused to whom he identified. In this regard, he had given further statement to the police. Pw.1 identified two wheeler used by the accused persons displayed in Ex.P.5/photograph.
10.3) In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused No.2, Pw.1 admitted that, description of the accused 10 S.C.No.276/2018 is not mentioned in Ex.P.1/complaint. He had no problem to mention description of the accused, but due to shock observed out of the incident, he was unable to mention the same. Pw.1 further admitted that, after the incident, he and Cw.2 were under shock. Pw.1 further admitted that, the facts that, people gathered on the spot, tried to catch the accused persons were not mentioned in the complaint. Pw.1 further admitted that, Ex.P.2 was prepared by the police on the spot and read over the same. Pw.1 further admitted that, before going to the police station, Ex.P.2 was prepared by the police on the spot. Pw.1 further admitted that, at the time of preparing Ex.P.2, police asked description of the accused persons. Pw.1 further admitted that, P.S.I. helped him to prepare complaint in the police station. Pw.1 further admitted that, when police called him to the police station for lodging complaint, accused were present in the police station. Pw.1 further admitted that, before going to Parappana Agrahara Central Prison, he went to Jayanagara police station. Pw.1 further admitted that, usually they use walk in other roads. 11
S.C.No.276/2018 Pw.1 further admitted that, in the said road, several CC TV cameras are installed. Pw.1 further admitted that, in the photo of chain shown in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, "Thali" "bhattu" are not exhibiting. Before going to the police station, police arranged seized all chains in an order. Pw.1 had given explanation for not writing description of accused in his complaint that it was due to shock. Further with respect to time taken for happening of incident, Pw.1 explained that, it may be happened within one minute. Pw.1 had given explanation for the question that, as he is having short sight and wearing specs, he was unable to identify the accused persons. Explanation given by Pw.1 is that along with him, there were many persons present and tried to chase accused persons. So far as time taken to go to police station after incident, Pw.1 explained that, within 25 to 30 minutes after incident, they went to Banashankari police station. For the question that, several CC TV camera were installed on the road, Pw.1 explained that when they enquired it was informed that, those CC TVs were not functioning.
12
S.C.No.276/2018 10.4) Pw.1 denied the suggestion that, police took them in their Jeep to the police station. Further, Pw.1 denied the suggestion that, no such incident had taken place as explained in Ex.P.1. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that, on the date of incident, he and Cw.2 was not walking. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that, he had not seen the accused either in the police station or in the Jail. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that, in order to help the police, he is deposing false.
10.5) In the cross-examination, advocate for the accused tried to test the presence of Pw.1 on the spot of incident. Further an attempt to test Pw.1 whether he had seen the accused persons on the spot of incident, is also made. Pw.1 remained firm in the cross-examination on the point of his presence on the spot of incident and he being witness for snatching of neck chain worn by his wife, by the accused persons. Hence, Pw.1 is trustworthy. 13
S.C.No.276/2018
11. Pw.2/Cw.2-K.R.Usha is the victim in this case. In her evidence, Pw.2 deposed that for the last 25 years, she is residing with her husband/ Cw.1/Parameshwaran at Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru. On 15.6.2017 evening at 6.30 p.m., she and her husband Cw.1 Parameshwaran were walking on 1st Main Road of Radha Krishna Layout, situated at Padmanabhanagara. When they came near the building where courier office is situated two persons came on a two wheeler. Pillion rider snatched her gold mangalya chain contained two golden beats, one dollar worn on her neck. Cw.1/Parameshwaran and other persons present on the spot chased those chain snatchers. Thereafter police came to the police. Aafter enquiry, they prepared writing. Pw.2 identified her signature on Ex.P.2/mahazar. Her husband Cw.1 had given complaint about the incident. After 3 - 4 months from the incident, Jayanagara police called them to the police station and shown her chain and persons who snatched her chain. She identified chain snatchers and her chain. Police had given her chain to her custody. Pw.2 produced her gold 14 S.C.No.276/2018 chain which was marked as Mo.1. Pw.2 identified her chain in the photos exhibited Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, she had given statement to the police. Pw.2 identified the accused persons produced before court through Video conference.
11.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.2 admitted that, she cannot identify two wheeler used by the chain snatchers on the date of incident. Pw.2 admitted that, two wheeler shown in Ex.P.5/photograph is not the said two wheeler. Pw.2 admitted that, incident of chain snatching was taken place within 20-30 seconds. Pw.2 admitted that, after the incident, she had not seen the faces of the chain snatchers, but she had seen back portion of their body. Pw.2 admitted that, she is wearing specs for short sight. Pw.2 admitted that, she had not read the contents written in Ex.P.2. Pw.2 admitted that, police had not shown the accused in the police station.
11.2) Pw.2 denied the suggestion that, as she was having short sight, she was unable to identify the accused. 15
S.C.No.276/2018 Pw.2 denied the suggestion that, on the date of incident, she and Cw.1 was not walking. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that, she had not seen the accused either in the police station or in the Jail. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that, to help the police, she is deposing false.
11.3) Pw.2 had given explanation about identification of the accused persons at the time of incident. For in the question that, chain snatchers came behind her back and snatched her chain, Pw.2 explained that, they came from the opposite side i.e., in front of them. For in the question that she had not seen the accused persons after snatching her chain, Pw.2 explained that, she had seen them before snatching her chain.
11.4) Elaborate cross-examination unable to impeach the credit, truthfulness of the evidence adduced by Pw.2. No admissions elicited in the cross-examination to show that Pw.2 was not present on the spot of incident. No admissions 16 S.C.No.276/2018 elicited to show that no chain snatching incident had taken place to show that no chain snatching incident had taken place by the accused persons. Hence, it is proved that Pw.2 is trustworthy.
12. Pw.3/Pw.8/Ganesh is the Goldsmith. In his evidence Pw.3 deposed that, since last 5 - 7 years, he is on his business of melting gold, silver and preparing ornaments. He had not seen the accused produced before the court through video conference. Among them, no one came with ornaments. About one year ago, one police came, enquired about him and taken his signature. Pw.3 identified his signature on Ex.P.6 spot and seizure mahazar. He do not know the contents mentioned in Ex.P.6. Police had not seized any gold chain from him. He had not given any statement to the police. As Pw.3 deposed against to the interest of the prosecution, Pw.3 was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side.
17
S.C.No.276/2018 12.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.3 denied the suggestion that, he purchased 4 gold chains from accused No.1 / Jabiuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar. Pw.3 denied the suggestion that, on 18.7.2017, accused No.1 and 2 brought by police to his shop and he produced 50 grams gold chain which was seized under the cover of Ex.P.6/mahazar. Pw.3 denied the suggestion that, he had given statement to the police as per Ex.P.7. Further Pw.3 denied the suggestion that, to help the accused he is deposing false. Apart from identifying his signature on Ex.P.6/seizure panchanama, Pw.3 not support the version of the prosecution.
13. Pw.4/Cw. Roopesha is the Appraiser of gold and silver. In his evidence, Pw.4 deposed that, on the basis of experience, he is examining and certifying the gold and silver. He is doing business of gold and silver since 10-12 years. Pw.4 identified his signature on Ex.P.6/seizure panchanama, which was marked as Ex.P.6(b). About one year ago, he was on his business in his shop situated at 18 S.C.No.276/2018 Jayanagara. Jayanagara police brought two person to his shop about 10.30 a.m. They produced 4 -5 chains and asked to examine and to inform valuation. He examined those chains and certified that, chains are made by gold and informed the value of those chains on the said date. At that time, police had taken signature on Ex.P.6. He cannot say exactly whether accused persons produced through video conference before court are the same persons brought by the police, due to lapse of many days. Pw.4 identified chain shown in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 photos that, similar chains he examined and informed the valuation.
13.1) In the cross-examination by advocate for accused No.2, Pw.4 admitted that, police had not given any notice to him. Pw.4 admitted that, there were no other persons when police brought two persons. Pw.4 admitted that, chains similar to that of shown in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 photographs are generally available in the shops. He had not given separate report on examination and valuation. Pw.4 admitted that, he 19 S.C.No.276/2018 had not gone to the police station. Pw.4 denied the suggestion that, he had not examined any ornaments. Pw.4 denied the suggestion that, as he has good co-operation with the police, agreeing to the request by the police to help them, he is deposing false.
14. Pw.5/Cw.4/Prasad L. is the panch witness for seizure panchanama. In his evidence Pw.5 deposed that, signatures shown to him on Ex.P.7/panchanama is his signature. About 2 years ago, he signed Ex.P.7 in Jayanagara police station. He do not know the contents of Ex.P.7. Police had not prepared any panchanama in his presence. Pw.5 was treated as hostile witness by prosecution.
14.1) In the cross-examination for the suggestion that, on 4.7.2017 accused No.1/Jabiuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar had taken them with Jayanagara police to S.B.Express Courier situated at No.17/1, 1 st Main Road, R.K. Naqgara, 2nd Stage, Padmanabhanagara, Pw.5 deposed that, 20 S.C.No.276/2018 two persons took them to the spot, but at that time, persons shown in the court through video conference was not present. Pw.5 further deposed that, he signed Ex.P.7 on the spot as well as in the police station. Pw.5 admitted that, police read over to him the contents written in Ex.P.7. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, Pw.5 admitted that, he cannot remember whether he signed Ex.P.7 in the police station. Pw.7 admitted that, he cannot say the contents written in Ex.P.7. Further Pw.5 admitted that, he cannot identify whether he had seen the persons shown through video conference ever before. Further, Pw.5 admitted that, he cannot remember whether he signed Ex.P.7 in Banashankari police station. Pw.5 denied the suggestion that, even though he was not present at the time of preparation of Ex.P.7, he is deposing false as tuited by the police. In this way, evidence adduced by Pw.5 is not useful to the prosecution.
21
S.C.No.276/2018
15. Pw.6/Cw.5-Mahesh is panch witness for seizure panchanama. In his evidence Pw.6 deposed that, signature shown on Ex.P.7 is his signature. About 2 years ago, he signed Ex.P.7 in Jayanagar police station. Jayanagara police took him and his friend to 1st Main Road, Padmanabhanagara. By showing the spot, police informed that they seized two wheeler vehicle from the said spot. Police was telling about incident of chain snatching. In the cross-examination, Pw.6 deposed that, he cannot remember whether police had given written notice. Pw.6 admitted that, he cannot say the boundary of the spot but there is courier office. Pw.6 denied the suggestion that, he had not gone to the spot of incident. Further, Pw.6 denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false. Evidence adduced by this witness is not helpful to prove the fact of seizure of two wheeler.
16. Pw.7/Cw.18/ Uma Mahesh is the Investigating Officer in this case. In his evidence Pw.7 deposed that, on 8.7.2018 Cw.12/Kemparaju and other staff of the Crime 22 S.C.No.276/2018 Division of Jayanagara Sub-Division produced accused No.1/Jabiuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar along with two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-25-ET-0018 found in their possession with a Report as per Ex.P.8. He arrested them in Cr.No.116/2017 U/s.397 of I.P.C. registered in Jayanagara police station and conducted investigation. During interrogation, accused No.1/Jabiuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar confessed and given information of commission of around 25 -30 chain snatching incidents all over Bengaluru city. With respect to present case, accused No.1/Jabiuddin had given information in his voluntary statement that, one day evening at 6.30 p.m., he and Arun Kumar went on their Honda deo vehicle to Padmanabhanagar, snatched 50 grams gold neck chain worn by the lady on her neck while waling on R.K.Nagar road. They sold the said gold neck chain to one Ganeshachari Dasarahalli of Magadi Road for Rs.1,00,000/- and distributed equally and spend the amount of his share. He recorded the said information given by the accused No.1 as per Ex.P.9. Further accused No.1 had given 23 S.C.No.276/2018 information that, he would show Ganeshachari of Dasarahalli, Magadi Road and Kethan of Goripalya to whom he and Arun sold gold chains and get it produced from them. The said portion of the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P.10.
17. With respect to this incident, accused No.2/Arun Kumar had also given voluntary statement. In his voluntary statement, accused No.2 informed that, one day evening at 6.30 p.m., he and Arun Kumar went on their Honda deo vehicle to Padmanabhanagar, snatched 50 grams gold neck chain worn by a lady on her neck while walking on R.K.Nagar road. They sold the said gold neck chain to one Ganeshachari, Dasarahalli of Magadi Road for Rs.1,00,000/- and distributed equally and spend the amount of his share. He recorded the said information given by the accused No.2 as per Ex.P.11. Further accused No.2 had given information that, he would show Ganeshachari of Dasarahalli, Magadi Road and Kethan of Goripalya to whom he and Tabrez sold 24 S.C.No.276/2018 gold chains and get it produced from them. The said portion of the voluntary statement of the accused No.2 marked as Ex.P.12.
18. On the basis of the information received from accused NO.1 and 2, Pw.7 proceeded to recover the stolen neck chain of Cw.2. Pw.7 deposed that, accused No.1 and 2 took him along with panchas and staffs to the spot where they committed chain snatching. On the spot shown by them, he prepared spot panchanama as per Ex.P.7, in the presence of Cw.4/ Prasad, Cw.5/ Mahesh. He identified his signature on Ex.P.7/.Spot panchanama. On the basis of information given by the accused, he went to Magadi Road, Dasarahalli. Accused persons shown him one Ganesh Sadhashiva S/o. Sadhashiva and told that, they had given snatched chains to him. The said Ganesh identified the accused persons and admitted that, he received gold chains from the accused. Chain returned by the said Sadashiva was seized under the cover of Ex.P.6/mahazar drawn in the presence of Cw.6 and 25 S.C.No.276/2018 Cw.7. Returning to the station, he entered the seized gold chain in the station P.F.No.129/2017 as per Ex.P.13. Pw.7 summoned Cw.1 and Cw.2 to identify the accused and their gold chain. He recorded their further statements after Cw.1 and 2 identified the accused as well as their gold chain. As per the order of the court, he handed over gold chain to the interim custody of Cw.1. He identified photos taken at the time of hand over of gold neck chain which were exhibited as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. He entered the seized two wheeler bearing No.KA-25-ET-0018 in station P.F.No.98/2017 and reported the same to the court. He identified Property Form at Ex.P.15. In the presence of Cw.10 and Cw.11 he prepared seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.16. Pw.7 identified two wheeler No.KA-25-ET-0018 shown in Ex.P.5/photograph. He send accused persons to court along with remand application. Pw.7 identified accused No.1 and 2 produced through video conferencing. He enquired, recorded statements of panch witnesses and police staff. On the basis of jurisdiction of the police station where incident taken 26 S.C.No.276/2018 place, he sought permission of II-ACMM., Bengaluru to transfer the matter to Banashankari police station. He transfered the case to Banashankari police station after obtaining permission. He identified Transfer Requisition at Ex.P.14.
18.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.7 admitted that, near the place of incident, there are shops, residential houses. Pw.7 admitted that, he cannot say the names of the residents. Pw.7 admitted that, in and around nearby the roads, CC cameras are installed. Pw.7 admitted that, he had not collected footages of CC TV recordings. Pw.7 admitted that, prior to identification of accused by the complainant, and Cw.2, he had not collected the details of the unknown persons from the complainant and Cw.2. Pw.7 admitted that, to confirm the vehicle used for commission of offence, colour, registration number and other particulars of the vehicle was not collected and recorded from the complainant and Cw.2. Pw.7 admitted that, he had not investigated to 27 S.C.No.276/2018 know the owner of two wheeler shown in Ex.P.5/photograph. Pw.7 admitted that, name of the owner of the said two wheeler has not made as witness in the charge sheet. Pw.7 admitted that, the knife said to be used by unknown persons to cause threat to the victim, was not seized. Pw.7 admitted that, he cannot remember the time of recording statements of the witnesses.
19. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, he had not visited the spot. Further, Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, no panchanama as per Ex.P.2 was prepared. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, accused No.1 and 2 had not committed chain snatching as alleged in the complaint by using two wheeler shown in Ex.P.5/photograph. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, he had not enquired any of the witnesses and recorded their statements. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, for the purpose of this case, he prepared the statement of witnesses. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, accused No.1 and 2 had not given any voluntary statements as per Ex.P.9 28 S.C.No.276/2018 to Ex.P.12. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, complainant and Cw.2 were not appeared. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, they had not identified accused No.1 and 2. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, he had not conducted any investigation in this case. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, statements and documents produced in this case are prepared by his staff and he signed on those statements and documents. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, to clear undetected cases in the station, and for statistical purpose, this false case was registered against the accused No.1 and 2. Pw.7 denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false.
20. Pw.8/Cw.19/Puttaswamy is the then Police Inspector of Banashankari Police Station who is in this case is, investigation Officer in part. In his evidence, Pw.8 deposed that, on 16.6.2017, he received records of this case; examined and conducted further investigation. Accused related to this case were arrested by Jayanagar police station in Cr.No.116/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. 29
S.C.No.276/2018 Properties relating to this case also was seized by them. On 24.6.2017 he submitted requisition to the court seeking body warrant to produce those accused persons in this case. He had taken police custody of the accused from 26.10.2017 to 27.10.2017. Interrogating accused persons, he recorded their voluntary statements. Along with remand application, he sent them to the court. Pw.8 identified accused No.1 and 2 produced before the court through Video conference. On 23.11.2017 he got Test Identification Parade conducted through Tahsildar in Parappana Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru. He received documents relating to this case from Jayanagar police station. Pw.8 identified his requisition to body warrant as per Ex.P.17, Requisition for Test Identification Parade at Ex.P.18 and Test Identification Parade at Ex.P.19. Pw.8 deposed that he can identify the admissible portions of "voluntary statement of accused", mahazar copy, statements of witnesses, PF received from Jayanagara police station. Jayanagara police handed over seized property to the interim custody of the complainant, which the witness 30 S.C.No.276/2018 identified in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 photographs. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against accused persons.
20.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.8 admitted that investigation of this case was delayed by 3 months due to pending investigation of several other incidents. Pw.8 admitted that, to submit requisition for identification parade there is delay of 3 months. Pw.8 explained that, due to pending investigation in several other cases, there was delay to submit requisition to conduct identification parade. Pw.8 admitted that, name of Tahsildar who conducted Test Identification Parade is not shown as witness in the charge sheet. Pw.8 admitted that, during the period of police custody, he had not shown the accused to the complainant. Pw.8 denied the suggestion that, he registered this false case against the accused for statistical purpose, even though investigation revealed that accused No.1 and 2 are not involved in this case.
31
S.C.No.276/2018
21. Pw.9/Cw.13 R.Balarama Naik is the then Police Head Constable in Banashankari police station. In his evidence Pw.9 deposed that, he was working in crime branch in the office of ACP, Jayanagara Sub Division. On 8.7.2017 , he along with Cw.7/Kemparaju, Cw.15/Chandra Shekar and others were appointed in the team headed by Cw.18 Police Inspector Jayanagara police station, to trace the accused and recover properties relating to chain snatching. Accordingly, to trace the offenders involved in old cases, they contacted informers. Informers informed about committing chain snatching by Tabrez and his friend moving on Honda Deo two wheeler. They further informed that, those 2 are coming at 3.30 p.m., near Banashankari Bus stop. Hence, in the afternoon at 3.30 p.m., they were waiting near Banashankari Bus stop. At that time, two persons came to the spot, on a black deo honda two wheeler No.KA-28-ET-0018. They caught them, enquired their name and address. Those two persons disclosed their names as Jabiuddin @ Tabrez and Arun 32 S.C.No.276/2018 Kuamar @ Aruna. On enquiry about two wheeler, they informed that, they had stolen the said two wheeler and using by changing registration number. They produced them along with two wheeler before Cw.18 along with report submitted by Cw.12/Kemparaju. Pw.9 identified the accused No.1 and 2 produced through video conference before the court. Pw.9 identified the two wheeler KA-28-ET-0018 shown in photo/Ex.P.5.
21.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.9 admitted that, prior to 8.7.2017 he had not received any information about the accused in this case. Pw.9 denied the suggestion that, he is deposing false as directed by his higher officers. Pw.9 further denied the suggestion that on 8.7.2017, they had not taken accused No.1 and 2 into possession along with KA-28- ET-0018 two wheeler.
22. Pw.10/Cw.7- Venugopal is one of the panch witness for spot panchanama/Ex.P.6. Pw.10 identified his signature on 33 S.C.No.276/2018 Ex.P.6. Pw.10 deposed that, about 8-10 months ago, Jayanagar police called him to the police station and had taken his signature on Ex.P.6. Police had not conducted any panchanama in his presence. No one was shown to him. He had not given any statement to the police. Pw.10 treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. In the cross- examination, Pw.10 denied the suggestion that, on 18.7.2017 he was present at the time when Police Inspector Jayanagar police station took accused No.1 and 2 to the house of Ganesh Sadashiva at Dasarahalli and seized 50 grams gold chain in his presence and he signed on Ex.P.6. Pw.10 further denied the suggestion that, he had given statement as per Ex.P.20. Further, Pw.10 denied the suggestion that, to help the accused he is deposing false.
23. Pw.11/Cw.17/Arjun L.R. is the then P.S.I. in Banashankari police station. In his evidence Pw.11 deposed that, on 15.6.2017 he was the Station House Officer. At 7.15 p.m., Cw.1/Parameshwaram came to the police station along 34 S.C.No.276/2018 with written complaint. He registered the same in station FI.R..No.187/2017 for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. sent F.I.R. to the court and copies to the higher officers. Pw.11 identified complaint at Ex.P.1, F.I.R. at Ex.P.21. On the same day, he proceeded to the spot, conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2, on the place shown by the complainant, in the presence of Cw.2/Usha. He submitted records to Cw.19 for further investigation.
23.1) In the cross-examination, Pw.11 admitted that, Cw.1 complainant and his wife informed him that, accused came on two wheeler. Pw.11 admitted that, he enquired about description of the accused persons with Cw.1/complainant and his wife, but they had not stated anything as they were in shock. Pw.11 admitted that, the said aspect was not mentioned in Ex.P.1/complaint. Pw.11 admitted that, photos of the old offenders maintained in the police station was not shown to Cw.1 and his wife. Pw.11 admitted that, he sent Ex.P.21/F.I.R. to the court on the next 35 S.C.No.276/2018 day of registration. Pw.11 admitted that, at the time of lodging Ex.P.1/Complaint, he made no effort to collect photo of the chain said to be snatched by the accused persons from Cw.1/ complainant and his wife. Pw.11 admitted that, registration number, colour of the two wheeler said to be used by the accused is not mentioned in Ex.P./1complaint. Pw.11 admitted that, time of preparation of Ex.P.2 spot panchanama is not mentioned in Ex.P.2. Pw.11 admitted that, fact that public not called as pancha witness at the time of preparation of panchanama, is not mentioned in Ex.P.2/panchanama. Pw.11 denied the suggestion that, he received Ex.P.1/complaint from the complainant on the spot when he visited to the spot. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 to 11 is the oral evidence coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 documentary evidence is available on behalf of prosecution. Out of the examined 11 witnesses, Pw.1/complainant, Pw.2/Victim deposed about the incident alleged in this case. Pw.7, Pw.8 and Pw.11 Investigation Officers deposed on the process of investigation. Pw.9 police head constable who 36 S.C.No.276/2018 secured accused persons deposed about the arrest of accused No.1 and 2. Pw.3 is receiver of stolen gold chain. Pw.4 is panchanama witness for seizure panchanama. Pw.5 is panch witness for spot panchanama. Pw.6 is panch witness for seizure of two wheeler. Pw.10 is witness for recovery of gold chain
24. In the case of robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or greivious hurt, essential ingredient required to be proved are as follows; Firstly robbery or dacoity is committed. Secon, at the time of committing robbery or commit dacoity offenders uses any deadly weapon or causes greivious hurt to any person or attempt to cause death or greivious hurt to any person.
24.1) Ingredients U/s.397 of I.P.C. is aggravated form of the offence punishable U/s.392 or U/s.395 of I.P.C. There shall be commission of robbery or dacoity as described in Section 392 or 395 of I.P.C. In the process of commission of 37 S.C.No.276/2018 robbery or dacoity, accused has to use deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or cause attempt to commit death or greviouos hurt at the time of commission of robbery or dacoity. Hence, first we have to assess whether prosecution succeeded to prove the commission of robbery or dacoity by the accused persons. To assess this fact in issue, it is just and necessary to consider supported evidence available in the prosecution side evidence.
25. Advocate for the accused submitted that, prosecution examined only 11 witnesses. Pw.1 complainant even though deposed in supported of the case of the prosecution, Pw.1 admitted that, no Test Identification Parade was conducted by Investigation Officer. In the cross- examination, Pw.1 admitted that description of the accused personswas not mentioned in his complaint/Ex.P.1. Complainant is an educated person. Aforesaid omission to mention the description of the accused persons in the complaint, is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, Pw.1 38 S.C.No.276/2018 admitted in the cross-examination that, even though CC TV Camera installed, footages of recording was not collected. In the event of collecting footages of the recording in the CC TV cameras on the spot, real culprits would have been traced. Description of the chain shown in the photographs Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 is different from the description stated by the Pw.1 and Pw.2 in their evidence. Pw.2 deposed that, she is unable to identify the two wheeler used by the accused persons. According to Pw.2, Cw.1 filed complaint in his house. Accused was not shown in the police station. Pw.7 Investigation Officer admitted that, he had not called inhabitants of the locality of the spot of the incident as witnesses for "spot mahazar". Investigation Officer had not recorded their statements. Investigation Officer had not collected footages of CC TV Camera recordings. Investigation Officer had not collected descriptions, details of the accused person prior to registration of case. Description colour of the vehicle is not mentioned in any document relied upon by the prosecution. Pw.2 not identified the vehicle shown in 39 S.C.No.276/2018 Ex.P.5/Photograph. Knife, alleged to be used by the accused at the time of commission of offence is not seized. Tahsildar who conducted Test Identification Parade is not cited as witness in the charge sheet. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for conducting Test Identification Parade after lapse of 3 months from the date of incident. Independent panch witnesses for spot panchanama, seizure panchanama to seize two wheeler said to be used by the accused , witnesses for recovery of stolen gold chain, receiver of the stolen property turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, column meant to mention duration of time taken for preparation of Ex.P.2/spot panchanama kept blank in Ex.P.2. Accused persons remained in Judicial custody since last two years. Considering all these factors into consideraton, learned advocate for the accused prayed to acquit the accused persons.
26. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, with the help of the supported 40 S.C.No.276/2018 evidence of the witnesses, coupled with documentary evidence available in the exhibited documents on behalf of prosecution, prosecution succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused persons made an attempt to cause grievous hurt to Cw.2 by showing deadly weapon like knife to threaten her while committing robbery of her gold neck chain. There is every possibility of causing grievious hurt on the seven-C bones, throat of a senior citizen lady aged about 60 years, when a gold neck chain forcibly snatched from her neck. Records revealed that, accused No.1 and 2 are selected chain snatching as their profession to have wrongful gain. Accused No.1 and 2 are habitual offenders. Against them, there are so many cases of chain snatching is registered. Complainant/Pw.1, victim/Pw.2 specifically described the happening of incident and identified the accused persons. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 and 2 supported by the evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer and police staff. Even though seizure 41 S.C.No.276/2018 panch witnesses not supported the process of seizure, still recovery is proved with the help of the evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer. No ill-will, vengeance is forthcoming in the evidence adduced by the Pw.1 and Pw.2 to depose against the accused persons. No explanation is given by the accused persons in their statement recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. stating reasons for deposing evidence by Pw.1 and Pw.2 and the police officers against them. So far as delay in conducting Test Identification Parade is concerned, Investigation Officer had given explanation that due to pending investigation in so many cases, he was unable to file requisition to get Test Identification Parade of the accused persons done. Non-recovery of weapon, minor discrepancies with respect to identification of two wheeler is not at all fatal to the case. Prosecution proved the fact that accused persons involved in the act of day light chain snatching of Cw.2; beyond all reasonable doubts. Due to unavoidable reasons prevailing in and around us, it is difficult for the prosecution to prove all ingredients of the charges framed 42 S.C.No.276/2018 against accused person beyond all shadow of doubt. Natural human tendency is a factor to be taken into consideration which appreciating evidence. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant, victim and Investigation Officer, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State prayed to convict the accused persons.
27. As discussed above, ingredients required to be proved in the offence like robbery, there shall be either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery -- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
28. Applying the evidence adduced by complainant/ Pw.1 and victim Pw.2 is necessary to assess whether offence 43 S.C.No.276/2018 of robbery has taken place in this case. Pw.1/R. Parameshwaran is the witness who was present along with Pw.2 at the time of happening of the incident of chain snatching of Pw.2. In his evidence Pw.1 explained how gold neck chain worn by Pw.2 was snatched away by two persons came on a motor cycle. In the cross-examination as discussed, except some admissions which are not so much relevant, there is nothing elicited to show that, evidence adduced by Pw.1 is false. However, evidence adduced by Pw.1 has to be evaluated with care and caution for the reason that Pw.1 is the husband of Pw.2. There is always suspicion of favouring the complaint given by wife in the evidence of the husband. Careful evaluation evidence of Pw.1 by taking into consideration cross-examination portion as well as corroboration with the ingredients of this complaint/ Ex.P.1, it is clear that, evidence adduced by Pw1 is trustworthy. Presence of Pw.1 at the time of incident on the spot is quite natural. There is no artificial or tutoring is forthcoming in the evidence adduced by Pw.1.
44
S.C.No.276/2018
29. Pw.2/K.R.Usha is the victim who lost her gold neck chain. In her evidence also Pw.2 described how the incident of chain snatching had taken place, when she was on her evening walk with her husband/Pw.1. She identified her neck chain, identified the person, who came and snatched her gold neck chain. Identification of accused persons by Pw.2 cannot be doubted for the reason that, she identified them because they had talk with her, before snatching her neck chain. Pw.2 was firm in the matter of identification by answering in the cross-examination that, she had seen their faces before snatching her neck chain.
29.1) So far as snatched gold chain of Pw.2 is concerned, there is no dispute on the side of the accused persons that, Mo.1/gold chain belonging to Pw.2. In other words, there is no counter claim by the accused side. In this way, act of robbery committed by accused No.1 and 2 is proved satisfactorily.
45
S.C.No.276/2018
30. Next aspect to be taken into consideration is with respect to recovery of the stolen gold neck chain of the Pw.2 on the basis of information received from the accused persons. In this regard, prosecution is not getting support of the evidence adduced by any of the independent panch witnesses signed to seizure panchanama. However, Pw.7/Uma Mahesh deposed about recording voluntary statements of accused No.1/Jaibuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar. Further Pw.7 explained how recovery of stolen gold neck chain of Pw.2 was made on the basis of information received from the accused persons. In the cross- examination of Pw.7, no such admissions elicited to show that, evidence adduced by Pw.7 on the point of recovery of stolen gold neck chain of Pw.2 was false. Pw.8/Puttaswamy Police Inspector deposed with respect to completion of investigation and submitting charge sheet against the accused persons. Pw.9 Balarama Naik deposed how accused No.1/Jaibuddin and accused No.2/Arun Kumar got arrested. 46
S.C.No.276/2018 Pw.11/Arjuan C.R. P.S.I. deposed with respect to registration of F.I.R. on the basis of complaint received from Pw.1. There is no unexplained inordinate delay in lodging of complaint , registration of F.I.R. and sending the same to the jurisdictional court. In this way prosecution proved the fact of lodging complaint by Pw.1 as soon as incident of chain snatching was taken place. Arrest of accused No.1 and 2 in some other case is also proved. With the help of evidence adduced by Pw.9/R.Balaram Naik, Head Constable. Seizure of stolen property on the basis of information received from the accused persons, during the course of custodial interrogation is also proved with the help of evidence adduced by Pw.7.
30.1) Defence set up by the accused side in the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses is concerned, suggestion put to Pw.1 that, to help the police they are deposing false. To substantiate aforesaid suggestion, no such material evidence is forthcoming to the extent of probabilities that, Pw.1 and Pw.2 had any personal interest in helping the 47 S.C.No.276/2018 police by giving false evidence. No such probable suggestion or material evidence is forthcoming to show that, there is any personal interest, enimity or vengeance that Pw.1 and Pw.2 had against accused No.1 and 2, to give false evidence that too on the allegation of very serious offence like snatching of mangalasutra gold neck chain worn by senior citizen lady against the accused persons. No probable material evidence is forthcoming to show that, police officers who registered case against accused persons, recorded voluntary statements of the accused persons, filed charge sheet against accused persons had any ill-will, vengeance or grudge against accused persons.
31. Advocate for accused submitted arguments that, there is doubt in identifying the accused persons by Pw.1 and pw.2 and Investigation Officers. There are discrepancies in the evidence adduced by Pw.1 and Pw.2 and Investigation Officer with respect to conducting Test Identification Parade. It is settled position of law that, human memory is short. 48
S.C.No.276/2018 Minor discrepancies bound to occur in all criminal trials. Pw.1 and Pw.2 identified persons produced before the court through Video Conference that they are the same persons who committed chain snatching of Pw.2. No reasonable cause is forthcoming to disbelieve the version of identification made by Pw.1 and Pw.2. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer on the point of arrest, recovery of stolen gold chain of Pw.2 on the basis of information received from the accused persons.
32. All incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence adduced by prosecution side was explained to the accused No.1 and 2 U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. All incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence adduced by prosecution side against accused person were denied by both accused persons as false. Both accused persons had not given any explanation for registration of case like chain snatching against them. Both accused persons had not 49 S.C.No.276/2018 choose to examine any witnesses on their behalf. Both accused persons had not chose to produce any material to substantiate their defence.
33. In this case, denial of the case of the prosecution as false, is the only defence set up by the accused. U/s.101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that, burden of proof lies on that person. In this case prosecution substantially proves the very story it alleges against accused persons. Prosecution proved the allegation made against accused persons in the charge framed against them relating to commission of offence of robbery, beyound all reasonable doubt.
34. So far as using deadly weapons or causing grevious hurt to any person or attempt to cause death or 50 S.C.No.276/2018 grievous hurt to any person is concerned, no evidence and material is not available in the prosecution side evidence. No such deadly weapon is recovered by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation. Neither Pw.1 nor Pw.2 sustained any type of injury. No wound certificate is produced by the investigating agency. Argument submitted on behalf of prosecution is that forcible snatching gold chain worn on neck itself is an attempt to cause grievious hurt on the victim. In the absence of any material, evidence to corroborate such argument, it is difficult to accept the version of the prosecution that, an offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. had taken place. Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that, accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/s.392 of I.P.C.
35. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution proved beyound all reasonable doubt that, on 15.6.2017 evening at 6.30 p.m., Cw.1/ Parameshwaran Cw.2/Usha were on their 51 S.C.No.276/2018 walking on 1 st Main Road, 2 nd Stage, R.K.Layout, Padmanabhanagara, Bengaluru city. Accused No.1 and 2 snatched 50 grams weighing gold chain worn by Cw.2/Usha on her neck and ran away on their two wheeler thereby accused No.1 and 2 have committed offence punishable U/s.392 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. Hence point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
36. POINT NO.2 In view of the above findings on point No.1, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
52
S.C.No.276/2018 Call on for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 30th day of July 2020.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
53
S.C.No.276/2018 Further Order on imposing sentence Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.1/Jabiuddin submitted that, he is in J.C. since last 3- 4 years. He is not at all related to the case. There is nobody to look after his parents. For the said reasons, accused No.1 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Accused No.2/ Arun Kumar submitted that, he is suffering from spinal card problem. Already he was in J.C. for 2 ½ years. For the said reasons, accused No.2 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Advocate for accused No.1 No.2 submitted that minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.1 and 2.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and 54 S.C.No.276/2018 fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused No.1 and 2.
Punishment for robbery U/s.392 of I.P.C. prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. If the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset or sunrise, imprisonment may extended to 14 years. In this case, it is not clear that, whether robbery had taken place in between sunset and sunrise because time of incident stated in Ex.P.1/complaint and in the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 is around 6.30 p.m. in the evening. Way of offence committed by the accused persons is not extra ordinary or cruel. No evidence is available to show that, victim sustained any injury on her neck. Accused No.1 and 2 are middle aged persons. No records are available to show that, accused No.1 and 2 are previously convicted for similar type of offences. Accused persons submitted that, they are having family. They are the only bread winners for their family members. Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the 55 S.C.No.276/2018 accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, leniency may be shown while imposing sentence on accused No.1 and 2.
No doubt that, the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 is of serious nature. Offence of chain snatching in public creates panic among public. Chain snatching shakes the confidence of the public on law implementing authority. Impact of this type of offence on public is more. Deterrent theory of punishment is suitable to prevent accused persons from continuing with such type of offences. Further imposing rigorous imprisonment with fine is helpful to prevent other offenders from commission of similar type of offences. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo S.I. for 6 months. Considering the fact that accused No.1 and 2 already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, 56 S.C.No.276/2018 invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. six months for the offence punishable U/s.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Order of interim custody granting Mo.1/Gold Neck chain to Pw.2 stands confirmed.
57
S.C.No.276/2018 Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 and 2 forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bonds and their surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 30th day of July 2020.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
58
S.C.No.276/2018 ANNEXURE I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 R.Parameshwaran Pw.2 K.R.Usha Pw.3 Ganesh Pw.4 Roopesh Pw.5 Prasad L. Pw.6 Mahesh Pw.7 Umamaheshwar Pw.8 Puttaswamy Pw.9 R.Balaramanayka Pw.10 Venugopal Pw.11 Arjun C.R. II. For Defence:- -Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2 Panchanama Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 Photos Ex.P.5 Photo Ex.P.6 Mahazar Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.3 59 S.C.No.276/2018 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Pw.4 Ex.P.7 Portion of statement of Pw.4 Ex.P.7(a) & (b) Signatures Ex.P.7(c) & (d) Signatures of Pw.6 and Pw.7 Ex.P.8 Report Ex.P.9 Portion of statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.10 Portion of statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.11 Portion of statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.12 Portion of statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.13 Property Form Ex.P.13(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.14 Transfer Requisition Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.15 Property Form Ex.P.15(a) Signature Ex.P.16 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.16(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.17 Body warrant requisition Ex.P.17(a) Signature of Pw.8 Ex.P.18 Requisition Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.8 Ex.P.19 TIP Report. For Defence side:- -Nil- IV List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 Gold Chain (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 60 S.C.No.276/2018 61 S.C.No.276/2018 62 S.C.No.276/2018 30.7.2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
Call on for hearing on sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
63
S.C.No.276/2018 Further Order on imposing sentence Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.1/Jabiuddin submitted that, he is in J.C. since last 3- 4 years. He is not at all related to the case. There is nobody to look after his parents. For the said reasons, accused No.1 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Accused No.2/ Arun Kumar submitted that, he is suffering from spinal card problem. Already he was in J.C. for 2 ½ years. For the said reasons, accused No.2 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Advocate for accused No.1 No.2 submitted that minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.1 and 2.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and 64 S.C.No.276/2018 fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused No.1 and 2.
Punishment for robbery U/s.392 of I.P.C. prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. If the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset or sunrise, imprisonment may extended to 14 years. In this case, it is not clear that, whether robbery had taken place in between sunset and sunrise because time of incident stated in Ex.P.1/complaint and in the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 is around 6.30 p.m. in the evening. Way of offence committed by the accused persons is not extra ordinary or cruel. No evidence is available to show that, victim sustained any injury on her neck. Accused No.1 and 2 are middle aged persons. No records are available to show that, accused No.1 and 2 are previously convicted for similar type of offences. Accused persons submitted that, they are having family. They are the only bread winners for their family members. Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the 65 S.C.No.276/2018 accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, leniency may be shown while imposing sentence on accused No.1 and 2.
No doubt that, the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 is of serious nature. Offence of chain snatching in public creates panic among public. Chain snatching shakes the confidence of the public on law implementing authority. Impact of this type of offence on public is more. Deterrent theory of punishment is suitable to prevent accused persons from continuing with such type of offences. Further imposing rigorous imprisonment with fine is helpful to prevent other offenders from commission of similar type of offences. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo S.I. for 6 months. Considering the fact that accused No.1 and 2 already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.1 and 2 shall be set off, 66 S.C.No.276/2018 invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. six months for the offence punishable U/s.392 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.
Order of interim custody granting Mo.1/Gold Neck chain to Pw.2 stands confirmed.
67
S.C.No.276/2018 Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 and 2 forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bonds and their surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
68
S.C.No.276/2018 Sri.R.R. advocate for accused No.2 filed I.A. U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence pending the appeal and to release the accused No.2 on bail. U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C., court convicting an accused satisfied that convicted intends to prefer appeal and accused is on bail and sentence imposed on the accused is not exceeding three years or the offence for which the person has been convicted is a bailable one then unless there is special reason for refusing bail he may be released on bail by keeping the sentence under suspension.
In this case, accused No.2 was on bail.
Imprisonment imposed upon accused No.2 is 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand).
Learned advocate for accused No.2 submitted that accused is intending to prefer appeal. Accused No.2 is ready to remit fine on 3.8.2020.
Learned public Prosecutor appearing for the State orally submitted objection to the bail application. 69
S.C.No.276/2018 In view of aforesaid submission made by accused No.2 and advocate for accused No.2, this court is of the opinion that until expiry of period provided to prefer appeal keeping execution of imprisonment under suspension and releasing the accused No.2 on bail would meet the ends of justice. Hence following order is made;
ORDER I.A. filed U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.c. filed by accused No.2 is hereby allowed.
Execution of sentence imposed herein is suspended till appeal period is over.
Accused No.2 shall execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) for his appearance to serve sentence in the event his appeal failed.
Advocate for accused No.1 and 2 are permitted to deposit fine amount of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each on 3.8.2020.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.