Bangalore District Court
Achukattu Police Station vs Was Enlarged On Bail. On Completion Of ... on 21 February, 2023
1 C.C.No.25167/2012
Digitally signed by
VEEDAMOORTHY B
VEEDAMOORTHY
KABC030728242012 BS
S
SADANANDABHAT
SADANANDABHAT BOLLAJE
BOLLAJE
Date: 2023.02.21
15:13:39 +0530
Presented on : 19-12-2012
Registered on : 19-12-2012
Decided on : 21-02-2023
Duration : 10 years, 2 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 21st day of February 2023
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.25167/2012 Date of commission of the
2. 01.02.2012 offence (As per F.I.R.) Channammanakere
3. Name of the complainant Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru City.
Ramachandrareddy G.M., S/o Muniswamy, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.13, 2nd Main,
4. Name of the accused Balaji Nagar, Ittamadu, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru City.
2 C.C.No.25167/2012The offences complained Sections 380 and 511 of the
5.
of Indian Penal Code 6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty 7. Final order Accused is acquitted 8. Date of order 21.02.2023 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Channammanakere
Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the above named accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 01.02.2011 at 05.00 a.m., the accused tried to commit theft of money from ATM Mechine at Axis Bank ATM Center situated near Udbhav Hospital, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 3 rd Stage, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station with the help of screwdriver. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 C.C.No.25167/2012
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.33/2012 at Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station. On 01.02.2012, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court. On 03.02.2012, the accused was enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused. He has appeared before this Court. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences triable by this Court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 4 C.C.No.25167/2012
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW6, the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and the Material Object MO1. After completion of the prosecution evidences, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution against him, examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that he has no defense evidence. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows: 5 C.C.No.25167/2012
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, out of 8 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of six witnesses before this Court as PW1 to PW6. Among them, PW2 Mahesh is the First Informant and eyewitness of the incident, PW1 Ramesh is another eyewitness of the incident, PW3 Akshay is the Spot Mahazar Witness, PW5 Kiran is the Seizer Mahazar Witnss and PW6 Bharamappa B.M, is the Investigation Officer of this case. The prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Among them, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are the Photographs, Ex.P5 is the First Information, Ex.P6 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P7 is the Seizer Mahazar, Ex.P8 is the Statement of Witness, Ex.P9 is the First Information Report and Ex.P10 is the Photograph. The Prosecution has also produced the Screwdriver as MO1. The accused in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has 6 C.C.No.25167/2012 denied the entire prosecution evidences which are incriminating against him as false. He has not produced any evidences either oral or documentary.
8. The arguments of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor are that from the oral evidences of PW1 to PW6, the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and the Material Object MO1, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charged against him and prayed to convict the accused in accordance with law.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that the spot mahazar witness PW3 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the Police have not taken his signature to the Spot Mahazar Ex.P7 at the place of incident. The Seizure Mahazar witness PW5 has not deposed the evidence supporting the case of the Prosecution. PW1 and PW2 are the Police witnesses and PW6 is also an Investigation Officer who have deposed supporting the case of the Prosecution. But, there are no evidences of the independent witnesses to prove the charges framed against 7 C.C.No.25167/2012 the accused. The MO1 seized in this case is implicated only for the purpose of this case. The accused before the alleged incident has drawn Rs.20,000/- from the very same ATM machine and he has not attempted to commit any theft as alleged. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted for the charges framed against him.
10. In the light of the above arguments, I read the oral and documentary evidences produced by the Prosecution. Ex.P5 is the Report given by PW2 before the Station House Officer of C.K.Achukattu Police Station along with the accused on 01.02.2012 at 6.15 a.m. As per the contents of Ex.P5, on 01.02.2012 at about 5.00 a.m., when PW1 and PW2 were on beat, the accused was trying to break ATM machine with some weapon at Axis Bank ATM situated at Ring Road; immediately, they went there and found that the accused was removed the top shield of ATM machine and tried to steal money from it; immediately, they caught hold him and brought him to the Police Station along with the weapon with him and produced before the Station House Officer along with 8 C.C.No.25167/2012 Ex.P5. PW1 and PW2 in their examination-in-chief have deposed the said fact supporting the case of the Prosecution and it is in consonance with the contents of Ex.P5. They have also deposed in their examination-in-chief that the accused was holding screwdriver with him. They have identified the said screwdriver as MO1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are the photographs of the place of the incident which are identified them during their examination-in-chief. In their cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their oral evidences deposed in their examination-in-chief. The Investigation Officer PW6 has also deposed in his examination-in-chief about the production of the accused by PW1 and PW2 along with Ex.P5, registered the crime, arrest of the accused, seizure of screwdriver and money of Rs.13,040/- from his possession by conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P9, conducting Spot Mahazar at the place of incident, recording the statement of the witnesses and produced the accused before the Court and filed charge-sheet against the accused. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW6 to 9 C.C.No.25167/2012 disbelieve his oral evidences deposed in his examination-in- chief.
11. The Spot Mahazar witness PW5 deposed about the Mahazar conducted by the Police at the place of incident. However, he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the Police have not taken his signature on the Mahazar at the place of incident. On the other hand, he has considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the Prosecution. Nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination that he signed Ex.P7 at the place of incident. PW5 has also not deposed about the seizure of screwdriver and cash of Rs.13,040/- at Police Station in his presence. He has also been considered as hostile witness and cross- examined at the request of the Prosecution. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination supporting the case of the Prosecution.
12. On careful perusal of the above oral and documentary evidences produced by the Prosecution, it appears that except PW1, PW2 and PW6 who are the Police witnesses, there are 10 C.C.No.25167/2012 no evidences of the independent witnesses supporting the case of the Prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused. In Ex.P5, PW2 has not disclosed the name of the weapon used by the accused for commission of the alleged offences. But, while the seizure of MO1, it is disclosed that the accused was in possession of screwdriver. From the oral evidences of PW1, PW2 and PW6, it appears that the accused was caught hold by PW1 and PW2 at the place of the alleged incident itself and he was produced before the Investigation Officer PW6 along with the Report Ex.P5. It appears from the documents produced by the accused that on 01.02.2022, he withdrawn Rs.6,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/-. There is no dispute in that regard. It appears from the records that the accused was caught hold at Axis Bank on 01.02.2012 at 5.30 a.m.; thereafter, he was produced before the Station House Officer at 6.30 a.m.; thereafter, he was in the custody of the Investigation Officer till he produced before the Court and thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. If these facts are considered, definitely, the accused withdrawn the cash from the ATM before he caught 11 C.C.No.25167/2012 hold by PW1 and PW2. It further appears from the evidence that the Investigation Officer has seized Rs.13,040/- from the accused. It shows that when the accused came to ATM machine to withdraw money, he was caught hold and produced before the Investigation Officer alleging that he was attempting to commit theft of money from ATM machine. Non-mentioning of the name of the weapon in Ex.P5 and the money drawn by the accused before he was caught hold by PW1 and PW2 creates probable doubt about the false implication of the accused in this crime. The said benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
13. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the 12 C.C.No.25167/2012 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against him. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is hereby acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety Bond will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
MO1 is ordered to confiscate to the State after appeal period.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 21.02.2023) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
13 C.C.No.25167/2012ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Ramesh, PW2 : Mahesh, PW3 : Akshay, PW5 : Kiran, PW6 : Bharamappa B.M.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 to 4 : Photographs, Ex.P5 : Report, Ex.P5(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P6 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P6(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P7 : Witness Statement, Ex.P7 : Mahazar, Ex.P7(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P8 : Witness Statement, Ex.P9 : First Information Report, Ex.P9(a) : Signature, Ex.P10 : Photograph.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
MO1 : Screwdriver.
14 C.C.No.25167/2012Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.15 C.C.No.25167/2012
21.02.2023 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety Bond will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
MO1 is ordered to confiscate to the State after appeal period.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.