Bangalore District Court
State By Hal Police vs Shivakumar on 9 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M MAYO HALL
UNIT, ENGALURU
Dated: This the 9th Day of October 2019
PRESENT: Sri. G.R.KULKARNI,
B.A.(LAW)., LL.B.,
XXIX Addl. Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.NO. 52091/2016
COMPLAINANT :- State by HAL Police
(By Sr.APP)
ACCUSED Shivakumar
S/o. Boraiah
Aged 38 Years
R/at. No.C-77, K.P.W.D quarters,
Jeevan Bheema Nagar
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Gunashekar., Advocate )
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF 08.03.2018
EVIDENCE
DATE OF JUDGMENT 09.10.2019
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the PSI of HAL P.S. against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 175 of Indian penal Code.
2 CC.No.52091/20162. BRIEF FACTS:-
The case of prosecution is that the accused has deputed as sitting squad for the PUC examination held in Bengaluru University for a period from 07.11.2014 to 26.11.2014 at Harijan College within the jurisdictional limits of HAL police Station. The accused with an intention to disrepute the Harijan College, on 25.11.2014 after completion of the examination took away four blank answer sheets and thereafter on 01.12.2014 threw them in front of Triveni Wines Store at Marathahalali and informed the said fact to the University and Police Station over the phone pretending to be an informer.
3. Based on the first information, the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation charge sheet filed against the accused.
4. The accused has entered appearance in response to the summons and has been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused. After hearing, the charge against the accused was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances as false. The accused submits no defence.
3 CC.No.52091/20165. Heard both sides.
6. The following points arise for my consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has deputed as sitting squad for the PUC examination held in Bengaluru University for a period from 07.11.2014 to 26.11.2014 at Harijan College within the jurisdictional limits of HAL police Station. The accused with an intention to disrepute the Harijan College, on 25.11.2014 after completion of the examination took away four blank answer booklets and thereafter on 01.12.2014 threw them in front of Triveni Wines Store at Marathahalali and informed the said fact to the University and Police Station over the phone pretending to be an informer and thereby has committed an offence punishable u/s. 175 of IPC?
2. What order?
7. My answer of the aforesaid points.
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - As per final order for the
following
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :-
In the instant case, prosecution has examined PW-1 who is the Principal of New Harijan College, PW-3 who was the Registrar, Evaluation have testified that during 07.11.2014 upto 26.11.2014 P.U Examination were held at Harijan College. The accused was sitting squad appointed during the examination. On 02.12.2014 PW-1 received an information from the Marathahalli Police that they have received some blank answer sheets near Vindu Vinayaka Wines Store. Upon verification it 4 CC.No.52091/2016 was found that four blank answer booklets were missing. PW-1 enquired is staffs about the same and also PW-3 conducted and internal enquiry on behalf of the University.
9. On enquiry it was found that on 25.11.2014 there was examination on BBM Management Process subject and during that time the four blank answer booklets were stolen by someone. Thereafter suspecting the accused he was enquired. PW-1 and PW-3 have identified the blank answer booklets as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The cover containing the answer booklets is marked as Ex.P5. PW-3 has given the complaint as per Ex.P11.
10. PW-2 has testified that one unknown person handed over a cover which was covered with white cloth to him while he was standing in front of the Wine shop. PW-2 opened the cover and saw documents written in English. He handed over them to the police. PW-2 has identified the white cloth as M.O.1. The cover is identified and marked as Ex.P5. The answer booklets are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. He has identified his signature over Mahazar which is at Ex.P10. PW-2 has stated that he was present near the Wine shop on 11.12.2014 when the police conducted the mahazar. PW-2 refuses to identify the accused.
11. PW-2 is partly treated as hostile and cross- examined by the Ld.Sr.APP wherein he refuses to identify the accused as the same person who had handed over the cover containing blank answer booklets to him. During the cross- examination on behalf of the accused he has stated that he has 5 CC.No.52091/2016 signed Ex.P10 at the police station and that he does not know the contents of the same.
12. PW-4 is the investigating officer who has narrated the manner in which he has conducted the investigation. PW-5 is the police official who has handed over bag and papers to the SHO and has given his report as per Ex.P13.
13. CW-4 and CW-5 have not been secured by the prosecution inspite of sufficient time. Therefore CW-4 and CW-5 are dropped.
14. I have carefully considered the entire evidence on record. Having considered the entire evidence, there is no iota of cogent evidence in order to attribute the guilt of the accused to the alleged offence. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that the accused has stolen the answer booklets from the college and handed it over to PW-2. Moreover PW-2 has not identified the accused. PW-2 has stated that he has signed Ex.P10 at the police station and that he does not know the contents of the same. Under such circumstances Ex.P10 stands not proved.
15. The evidence of official witnesses such as PW-4 and PW-5 is corroborative piece of evidence which can be considered only in the event the material witnesses support the case of the prosecution. The material witness in this case that is PW-2 does not identify the accused and PW-1 and PW-3 do not throw any light upon the role of the accused in the alleged crime.
6 CC.No.52091/2016Therefore the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
16. There is nothing substantial on record to attribute the guilt of the accused to the alleged offence. Therefore the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the charges leveled against the accused is not proved. Hence the accused deserves to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
17. Point No.2 : For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offence punishable U/s. 175 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety stands cancelled.
M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 9th day of October 2019.) (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW-1 Bodisathwan PW-2 Shashidhar PW-3 K.N.Ningegowda 7 CC.No.52091/2016 PW-4 Guruprasad .G PW-5 Shivalingappa LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 to 4 Four booklet Ex.P.5 Benglauru University Cover Ex.P.6 Answer Booklet Bundles received list Ex.P.7 Requisition submitted by the accused for duty report Ex.P.8 Relieving order dated:06.11.2014 Ex.P.9 Time Table for November-December-2014 Ex.P.10 Mahazar Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P.11 Complaint Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW-3 Ex.P.12 FIR Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.13 Report Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW-4 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW-5 Ex.P.14 & 15 Two Attendance certificates Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW-4 & 15(a) LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
M.O.1 White Cloth Bag
(G.R.Kulkarni)
XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU
8 CC.No.52091/2016
09.10.2019
State by APP
Accused
For Judgment
(Vide separate order pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offence punishable U/s. 175 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety stands cancelled.
M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
XXIX ACMM