Bangalore District Court
State By Banaswadi Ps vs K.Rajaram on 7 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL 2015
PRESENT
Ms.S.L.Ladkhan, B.A., L.L.M.,
IV A.C.M.M. Bangalore
CC No. 31369/2010
Complainant : State by Banaswadi PS
V/s.
Accused : K.Rajaram, 35 Yrs.,
S/o Late Kannaiah Naidu,
R/a. No.4, 2nd cross,
Kanakadasa Layout, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
The PI, Banasawadi Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.226/2010 against accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable u/s.408, 420, 177 r/w 380 of IPC.
2. The brief prosecution case is as follows :
Initially complaint came to be lodged by accused himself on 5.4.2010 alleging that he was working at KBS Fare Price shop at Lingarajapuram, Bangalore. That on 4.4.2010 at about 10.45 p.m. while he was closing the store three unknown persons entered into the shop and poured chilli powder on him and assaulted him with the blade / knife on his body and took away the money belonging to the company that was kept in the safe locker that an amount of Rs.1,42,230/- was the sale proceed and the said amount was taken
-2- CC 31369/2010 away by those unknown persons. That he immediately rang his friend Rajesh. Rajesh and Raju came to his store and they got him treated at Sundar Hospital and later on the accused gave this complaint on 5.4.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. that came to be registered in Crime No.226/2010 for the offences punishable u/s.394 of IPC.
Subsequently again another complaint came to be lodged by one Aravind on 30.4.2010 alleging that the accused was working as the Outlet Manager in the KBS Fare Price Shop since 2 years and the facts of the earlier incident are cited in this complaint. Subsequently further it is pleaded that after the incident they checked the said store to find that cash of Rs.1,04,000/- and the material worth Rs.60,000/- was short. Later on they came to know through the reliable sources that the accused had stored some materials in his house and there was a suspicion that a false complaint was given by the accused. As such this complaint came to be lodged. The I.O. after investigation has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. Cognizance was taken after filing of charge sheet.
3. Accused was arrested on 3.5.2010 and he was enlarged on bail by my predecessor in office on 24.5.2010. Provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were duly complied with.
4. My predecessor in office has heard on charges. Charges for the offences punishable u/s.408, 420, 177 IPC was recorded. Certificate reveals that, it was read over and explained to the accused in the Kannada language known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence summons was issued to the prosecution witnesses.
-3- CC 31369/2010
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all has led in the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Though sufficient opportunity was given the prosecution has failed to lead the evidence of CW5 to CW7, CW10 and CW11, as such their evidence was dropped. Prosecution evidence was taken as closed.
6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence available against him was recorded. Accused has denied it and led no defense evidence.
7. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused the materials on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 4.4.2010 the accused being the Outlet Manager in KBS Fare Price shop situated at Lingarajapuram, Bangalore misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,42,000/- and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.408 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place the accused gave a false information to the police that some unknown person had assualted him and robbed an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- and thereby cheated the complainant CW1 company and committed the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC ?
-4- CC 31369/2010
3) Whether the prosecution further roves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused misappropriated sum of Rs.1,42,000/- and knowing fully well gave a false information to the public servant and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.177 of IPC ?
4) What order ?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : In the negative.
Point No.3 : In the negative.
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 3 : As these points are inter-related, in order to avoid repetition of discussion they are taken together for common consideration. It is the case of the prosecution that Initially complaint came to be lodged by accused himself on 5.4.2010 alleging that he was working at KBS Fare Price shop at Lingarajapuram, Bangalore. That on 4.4.2010 at about 10.45 p.m. while he was closing the store three unknown persons entered into the shop and poured chilli powder on him and assaulted him with the blade / knife on his body and took away the money belonging to the company that was kept in the safe locker that an amount of Rs.1,42,230/- was the sale proceed and the said amount was taken away by those unknown persons. That he immediately rang his friend Rajesh. Rajesh and Raju came to his store and they got him treated at Sundar Hospital and later on the accused gave this complaint on 5.4.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. that
-5- CC 31369/2010 came to be registered in Crime No.226/2010 for the offences punishable u/s.394 of IPC. Subsequently again another complaint came to be lodged by one Aravind on 30.4.2010 alleging that the accused was working as the Outlet Manager in the KBS Fare Price Shop since 2 years and the facts of the earlier incident are cited in this complaint. Subsequently further it is pleaded that after the incident they checked the said store to find that cash of Rs.1,04,000/- and the material worth Rs.60,000/- was short. Later on they came to know through the reliable sources that the accused had stored some materials in his house and there was a suspicion that a false complaint was given by the accused.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has led in evidence of PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
12. The prosecution has led in the evidence of complainant as PW1. He has deposed about the duties and responsibilities of the accused. This witness was bound over for further chief-examination. Subsequently prosecution has failed to secure this witness. PW1 has not undergone test of cross-examination. As such his evidence has to be discarded.
13. PW2 and PW3 both of them have deposed that on the information given by the accused on 4.4.2010 they went to his shop at 11.00 p.m. and found the accused lying down with the injuries on his face. Subsequently they came to know that the accused himself had misappropriated the said amount. In the cross-examination PW2
-6- CC 31369/2010 had given the admission that he does not know who has committed the said offence and it is only from the police he has come to know about the involvement of the accused in this case. Therefore, the evidence of this witness has to be corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.
14. PW3 in his chief-examination has deposed that, the accused had given a false complaint and subsequently he came to know that the material objects were seized from the house of the accused. This evidence of PW3 is mere hearsay evidence. Therefore, evidence of this witness also has to be corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.
15. PW4 is the PC who has deposed that they have seized the articles, grocery from the house of the accused. In the cross- examination it is elicited that they have not enquired two women who were the alleged purchasers of those articles and even is not able to say the time of panchanama being drawn. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is not reliable. Except the evidence of PW2 and PW3, none of the witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to lead the evidence of the other witnesses. The I.O. is also not examined in this case. Prosecution has failed to prove the investigation of this case.
16. Ex.P.1 is the complaint that was lodged by the accused himself and Ex.P.2 is the subsequent complaint that came to be lodged by CW1. Except these two documents none of the documents are
-7- CC 31369/2010 proved by the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove the panchanama also. Therefore, under these circumstances a cluster of doubt is created over the prosecution case. Hence, under these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused himself has taken away those articles from the fare price shop and subsequently had sold them to the public and thereby had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,42,000/-. The panchanama is not proved. Prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the said grocery from the house of the accused. Therefore, a link in the chain of circumstances is missing. Hence, under these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, my finding on the above points are in the negative.
17. Point No.4 : For having answered the above points as per the above discussion, I proceed to pass this following :
ORDER Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.408, 420, 177 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of April 2015) (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
-8- CC 31369/2010
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW.1 : Aravind PW.2: Rajesh PW.3: G.Raja PW.4: Jai Kiran
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint filed by accused. Ex.P.2 : Complaint lodged by complainant.
List of M.O.s marked for prosecution : NIL List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of accused : NIL (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
-9- CC 31369/2010
07.04.2015
State by Sr.APP
Accused
For judgment
ORDER
(pronounced in open court vide separate order) Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.408, 420, 177 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused and surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of April 2015) (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.