Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs No.3 Is Owner Of The Vehicle In Which ... on 16 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C Serial Number of the C.C.23030/2016 case Name of the State by Excise Sub complainant Inspector, Kengeri Excise Police (Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor ) Name of the accused 1). M.V.Mohan, person/s S/o.Venkataswamy, Aged about 47 years, R/a.No.219, 4th cross, 4th main, Poornaprajna Nagar, BSK 3rd stage, Bangalore- 71
2). Chandru.S, S/o.Late, Srinivas, R/at.No.142, 1st main road, Pooja Nilaya, Avalahalli, Bangalore-26.
3). Smt.Kavitha.V, W/o.Mohan, Aged 38 years, R/at. No.26, Hanumagiri Nagar, 14th main road, 2 C.C.23030/2016 Chikkalasandra, Bangalore.
(Reptd by S.G.M.Adv.,)
Offences complained U/Secs.11, 13, 14, 15 r/w
of Sec. 32, 38(A), 43 and 43(A)
of Karnataka Excise Act.
Date of 05.02.2016
commencement of
offence
Date of 22.11.2018
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closure of 30.07.2019
recording evidence
Plea of the accused Not Guilty
and his examination :
Offences proved Nil
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 16.10.2019
I. Brief statement of reasons for the decision:
1. On behalf of prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the evidence of C.W.1-complainant is adduced as P.W.2. C.W.2 who is owner of the house in which the accused no.1 is residing is examined as P.W.6 claiming to be circumstantial witness. C.W.3 one Mahadev and C.W.4 -Yogesh are examined as P.W.3 and P.W.1 3 C.C.23030/2016 respectively, claiming to be seizure mahazar witnesses as well as eye witnesses to the raid. Both P.W.1 and 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
2. C.W.7-P.S.I of Excise is examined as P.W4 claiming to be eye witness to the raid and C.W.11-I.O is examined as P.W.5.
3. Learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor given up examination of C.W.8 to 10.
4. The prosecution failed to secure C.W.5 and 6 inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Hence examination of C.W.5 and 6 came to be dropped.
5. During course of trial, defence of the accused is total denial of the case of the prosecution.
6. During arguments Learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.2 and 5 is sufficient to prove the recovery of liquor from the possession of accused and evidence placed on record is pointing out towards the guilt of the accused and accordingly he prayed for conviction. 4 C.C.23030/2016
7. On the other hand it is argued that P.W.1 and 5 are interested witnesses and their evidence remained uncorroborated with the evidence of independent and reliable evidence. Further it is argued that absolutely no evidence is placed on record against accused no.2 and 3 and further it is argued that the I.O filed false charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 and accordingly counsel for accused prayed for acquittal of the accused.
8. In the background of rival submissions the prime question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 3.
9. It is case of the prosecution that accused no.1 and 2 were transporting liquor and when the C.W.1 and 11 and others stopped the vehicle, the accused no.2 fled away from the spot. Further it is case of the prosecution that on the basis of information given by accused no.1 some incriminating material are recovered from the house of accused no.1. Further it is case of the prosecution that 5 C.C.23030/2016 accused no.3 is owner of the vehicle in which liquor was being transported. This court observed that absolutely no evidence is placed on record to believe that the accused no.3 who is owner of the vehicle committed the alleged offences. No evidence is placed on record to establish that the accused no.2 was transporting the liquor.
10. Coming to involvement of the accused no.1 this court noticed that P.W2 and 5 in their evidence deposed that accused no.1 was transporting the liquor. During cross examination the P.W.2 explained that after seizure of M.O.2 to 8 -samples he put the same in a bag and affixed the chit on the bag. Admittedly no bag is produced and marked. Admittedly no chit is found on the materials seized by the I.O. Except evidence of P.W.2 and 5 no other witness deposed as to seizure of M.O.1 to 8 from the possesion of accused no.1. The independent mahazar witnesses P.W1 and 3 fully turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and in the lengthy cross examination made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor nothing has 6 C.C.23030/2016 been elicited from their mouth to get support the case of the prosecution. This aspect creates a serious doubt.
Apart from that as I have above stated as to specific identification of the property, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to act upon or rely on. As I have above stated, absolutely no evidence is forthcoming against accused no.2 and 3. This aspect also creates a doubt in believing the case of the prosecution. In turn the circumstances necessiates to appreciate the evidence against accused no.1 with extra care.
11. For the reasons stated above this court comes to the clear conclusion that evidence placed on record is not free from material contradictions and not pointing out towards guilt of the accused persons only. Under these circumstances, it is clear that it is not safe and proper to rely on the evidence on record and to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences. Hence this court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences beyond all reasonable doubt. 7 C.C.23030/2016 II. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 11, 13, 14, 15 r/w Sec. 32, 38(A), 43 and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act.
Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
The M.O.1 to 8, being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
The mobile phone and car seized in this case are ordered to be returned to the person from whom it was seized.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.8 C.C.23030/2016
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1-Sri.Yogesh.K P.W.2-Sri.Vijaykumar.G.V-Dy.Superintendent of Excise P.W.3-Sri.Mahadev P.W.4-Sri.Krishnappa-Excise P.S.I. Kengeri Range P.W.5-Sri.L.Chandrashekar-Excise P.S.I. Kengeri Range P.W.6-Sri.M.C.Monnappa
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.1(a,b,c) : Signatures Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.2(a) : Signature Ex.P.3-FSL report
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1- 10 Peter Stalk Malt Whisky Bottles 720 Mili M.O.2- 20 Blenders Pride caps M.O.3- 24 Royal Stag caps M.O.4- 1 K.G.of caramel bottle M.O.5- 10 Golconda brandy caps M.O.6- 1 roll gumtape M.O.7- 7 green magic brandy label 750 mili M.O.8- 320 Golconda brandy label 720 mili M.O.9- Nokia mobile phone (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.