Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafiq on 25 October, 2022
KABC030368542017
Presented on : 29.05.2017
Registered on : 29.05.2017
Decided on : 25.10.2022
Duration : 05y/04y/26days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B
Dated on this 25th day of October 2022
C.C.No.14893/2017
COMPLAINANT : The State by
Bengaluru City Railway P.S
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafiq
S/o. Late Abdul Karim,
R/at. No.66/3, 8th Main,
2nd Cross, Roshan Colony,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of offence 25.01.2015
Date of report 25.01.2015
Date of arrest 27.10.2015
Name of the complainant Sri.S.Jayramaiah
Date of commencement of 05.03.2018
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 23.09.2022
Offences complained of U/Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
2 C.C.No.14893/2017
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.Vedamurthy A.,Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 25.10.2022] The Police Sub-Inspector of Bengaluru City Railway P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 25.01.2015 at 1.09 a.m., the accused by concealing his identity made a phone call through his mobile No.9620369665 to 100 of police control room and made statement and spread false rumor that, a bomb is placed near Nandini Hotel, Upparpet and subsequently when CW.5 made a phone call to him, he stated that a bomb is placed at Bengaluru City Railway Station and thereby created fear or alarm in public which is against the public tranquility and thereby committed the offences. On the basis of written complaint given by CW.1/S.Jayaramaiah, the Bengaluru City Railway Police have registered this case in Crime No.47/2015.3 C.C.No.14893/2017
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused for the O/P/U/Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.505[b],507 of IPC against accused.
4. On 27.10.2015 the accused was arrested and produced before the court and on 30.10.2015, he got enlarged him on bail. After taking cognizance of the offences, this Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. He claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 documents. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence led against him. He did not choose to lead his defence evidence.
4 C.C.No.14893/2017
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. V.A., Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 25.01.2015 at 1.09 a.m., the accused made a phone call through his mobile No.9620369665 to 100 of police control room, made false statement and spread false rumor that a bomb is placed near Nandini Hotel, Upparpet and subsequently when CW.5 made a phone call to him, he stated that a bomb is placed at Bengaluru City Railway Station and thereby created fear or alarm in public and thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.505[b] of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused by concealing his identity made anonymous 5 C.C.No.14893/2017 call and spread false rumor and thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.507 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative Point No.2 : In Negative Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 & 2: As these two points are interrelated, I take both the points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused by concealing his identity made a phone call to 100, the police control room and made false statement and spread rumor that a bomb is placed in Nandini hotel, Upparpet and subsequently stated that a bomb is placed at Bengaluru City railway station and created fear in the mind of public and has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.1, mahazar witness CW.3 as PW.2, police officials CW.4 as PW.3, CW.6 as PW.4, CW.7 as PW.5, 6 C.C.No.14893/2017 CW.9 as PW.6, CW.5 as PW.8 and investigating officer CW.11 as PW.7 and got marked the report/complaint as Ex.P.1, FIR as Ex.P.2, call details as Ex.P.3, spot mahazar as Ex.P.4, Report as Ex.P.5 and portion of the voluntary statement of the accused as Ex.P.6. By way of confrontation, the accused got marked copy of case dairy as Ex.D.1.
12. CW.1/PW.1-S.Jayaramaiah in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as PSI at Bengaluru City Railway Police station on 24.01.2015, he was deputed for Bandobust duty.On 25.01.2015 at 1 a.m., an anonymous call came from 9620369665, who stated that, he has placed a bomb near Nandini Hotel near Upparpet Police Station. Accordingly, CW.4 informed the same to Upparpet Police Station. Subsequently, the PSI of Upparpet Police Station informed that, the bomb is not placed at Nandini Hotel, it might be placed at Bengaluru City Railway Station. He confirmed the information by making a phone call to Upparpet Police station. He informed the same to his higher officials. PS- Bhaskar and themselves requested dog squad of Audogodi. 7 C.C.No.14893/2017 Immediately, dog squad came to Bengaluru City Railway Station and on search they did not find any bomb. In order to create fear among the public, that person had made anonymous call. Hence, he gave Ex.P.1 complaint and on the basis of which Ex.P.2 FIR was registered. Subsequently, Ex.P.3 call details was collected. He recorded the statements of CW.4 to 6 and 9.
13. CW.3/PW.2 - Khasim in his evidence has stated that, he has affixed his signature to Ex.P.4 at Bengaluru City Railway Police Station in connection with a case in which, the police had received a phone call that a bomb is placed at Railway Station.
14. CW.4 /PW.3 Anitha Y.S in her evidence has stated that, while she was asking as WPC at Bengaluru Control Room, she received a phone call to No.100 from an unknown person on 24.01.2015 at 1.09 a.m through 9620369665 mobile number who stated that a bomb is placed near Nandini Hotel of Upparpet. By seeing the caller Id, she came to know that the call was made by Rafiq Ahamed, Roshan Colony, Thilak nagar. Accordingly, she 8 C.C.No.14893/2017 informed the same to shift in-charge and West control room bearing No.22943232 and requested him to take necessary action.
15. CW.6/PW.4 M.Nagarajaiah, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as head constable at Railway Control Room, on 25.01.2015 at 2.45 a.m he received a call to No.100 from West control room stating that, a bomb is placed at Railway Station. Immediately, he informed the same to Bengaluru City Railway Police station. He came to know that the accused had made that call to control room. Accordingly, he requested the police to take necessary action against accused.
16. CW.7/PW.5 Basavarajaiah, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as head constable at Bengaluru City Railway Station on 27.10.2017, CW.11 deputed him and CW.8 to trace out the accused. Accordingly, they went to the mobile repair shop of the accused, which is situated at 4th cross, Jayanagar. On the basis of call details, they arrested the accused and produced him before CW.11. Accordingly, he gave Ex.P.5 report. He identified the accused to whom they had arrested. 9 C.C.No.14893/2017
17. CW.9/PW.6 Bhaskar, in his evidence has stated that while he was working as PSI at Bengaluru Cantonment Railway police station, he was deputed for night duty on 24.01.2015. At 2.45a.m, when he was on night rounds, he received a phone call from railway control room that, the control room has received an anonymous call that a bomb is placed at Bengaluru City Railway police station. The station in-charge along with his staff and dog squad searched the station, but no bomb was found. It is learnt that, it was a false call. On verification of call details, it is learnt that, the phone call was made by Rafiq Ahamed, Thilak Nagar, Bengaluru.
18. CW.5/PW.8 Anand Nayak , in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as inspector at Upparpet police station, he was deputed for night duty on 24.01.2015. On that night, he received an information that a person by making call from 9620369665 number stated that a bomb is placed at Nandini hotel. Hence, he made a call to that number through his mobile number , who told that the bomb is placed at railway station and 10 C.C.No.14893/2017 not at Nandini hotel. On the basis of that phone number, he collected his address. A case was registered by railway police station.
19. CW.11/PW.7 Bailanjaneya, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as PSI at Bengaluru City Railway police Station, on the basis of address mentioned in Ex.P.3 call details, he had deputed CW.7 and 8 to trace out the accused. On 27.10.2015, his staff produced the accused by name Rafeeq Ahamed. By following arrest procedure, he conducted spot mahazer as per Ex.P.4, at the place from where the accused made phone call. He recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.6, wherein he has stated that, he has destroyed the mobile phone with sim card. By completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused. He has identified the accused.
20. On the basis of Ex.P.1 report given by PW.1 on 25.01.2015, the Bengaluru City Railway police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. In order to hold the accused guilty of the offences alleged against 11 C.C.No.14893/2017 him, the prosecution has to prove that the accused by concealing his identity made a call to No.100- Police control room through his mobile phone No.9620369665 and made a false statement and spread rumor that, a bomb is placed at Nandini Hotel, Upparpet and when CW.5 made a call to his number, he told that a bomb is placed at Railway Station and not at Nandini Hotel and created fear in the mind of public.
21. In the present case, the prosecution has produced the call details of phone No.9620369665, which is marked as Ex.P.3. As per this document that 9620369665 phone number stands in the name of Rafiq Ahamed, the accused. But, in Ex.P.3 there is no reference about the company name to which 9620369665 sim card belongs. As per this document, the call was made to No.100 on 25.01.2015 at 1.08.20 a.m. That portion of the call detail is marked as Ex.P.3[b]. As per Ex.P.4, the IO has drawn spot mahazar on 27.10.2015 at 5 p.m., to 5.45 p.m. There is a reference in this document stating that, the IO has not seized any things or articles 12 C.C.No.14893/2017 from the spot in connection with the alleged crime. Ex.P.6 is the alleged voluntary statement given by the accused.
22. The PW.7, the IO has stated that the accused has given voluntary statement as per Ex.P.6[a] wherein he has stated that, he has destroyed his mobile phone including sim card. During the course of cross examination of PW.7, the accused got marked the remand application dated 27.10.2015 as Ex.D.1, wherein it is mentioned that the police have seized a mobile phone from the accused. Nowhere in the prosecution papers, the IO has mentioned name of the mobile company of which, the accused was using mobile. Likewise, he has not mentioned the name of the company to which 9620369665 sim card belonged.
23. As stated by the IO, if the accused had destroyed his mobile phone and sim card in the apprehension of his arrest, then what was the necessity for the police to mention the description of seized article as mobile phone of the accused, in the remand application, which is marked as Ex.D.1. This aspect has not been clarified by the IO.
13 C.C.No.14893/2017
24. The IO in his cross examination admits that there is no reference in Ex.P.4 regarding the name of the company of the mobile phone and sim card, which was allegedly used by the accused. From the contents of Ex.P.3, it appears that a phone call was made to No.100 from 9620369665 number on 25.01.2015 at 1.08.20 a.m. But, there is no convincing document before the court to hold that, the accused himself made that phone call to police control room stating that a bomb is placed near Nandini hotel, Upparpet.
25. It is quite natural that, any person can make a phone call from anybodies mobile phone if it is available for him/her. In the present case, except PW.2 all other witnesses are police officials. During the course of cross examination, the PW.1 stated that he has given Ex.P.1 complaint on the basis of the sayings of superintendent of Police.
26. During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admits that it cannot be detected or traced out, who had made phone call to control room No.100 and the contents of the conversation of that 14 C.C.No.14893/2017 call. Though the PW.3 stated that, she had received phone call on 24.01.2015 at 1.09 a.m from 9620369665, there are no materials on record to hold that, she was deputed for night duty on the date of alleged incident as call taker of the control room and the accused personally stated that a bomb is placed near Nandini hotel, Upparpet.
27. Though the PW.8 contends that, he had called 9620369665 number from his mobile number 8884160410 to confirm the statement made by the accused, who told that the bomb is placed at Bengaluru City Railway station and not at Nandini hotel, Upparpet, he has not produced any documents on record to show that 8884160410 number belongs to him.
28. According to PW.3, we can see the phone number, who makes a call to No.100, the police control room. But, there are every chances that, any person can take the mobile phone of others for having conversation with another person. In the present case, though the mobile number of accused was used for the commission of the alleged offence, there are no materials on 15 C.C.No.14893/2017 record to show the contents of the conversation of Ex.P.3[b]. It is pertinent to note here that the conversation made under Ex.P.3[b] was not recorded. Hence, there are no materials on record to hold that the accused himself made alleged phone call stating that a bomb is placed at Nandini hotel or near Railway Station.
29. Merely on the ground that a phone call was made to police control room as per Ex.P.3[b] from the phone number of the accused, it cannot be accepted that the conversation of that phone call was regarding placing of bomb at Nandini Hotel or at Bengaluru City Railway Station. In the present case, the mobile which is referred in Ex.D.1 is not produced before the court. The contents of Ex.P.6[a] is contrary to Ex.D.1, which are prepared by the investigating agency.
30. In order to substantiate the fact that, the dog squad was called from Madivala to make search at Bengaluru City Railway Station on 25.01.2015, the IO has not produced any cogent documents. Though the PW.6 stated that the dog squad had searched Bengaluru City Railway Station from 2.45 to 4.30 a.m on 16 C.C.No.14893/2017 25.01.2015, there are no documents on record to substantiate his contentions.
31. The PW.5 deposed regarding the arrest of accused. The police officials, who are examined before the court have admitted that anybody can make a phone call by receiving a mobile phone of others. There is no audio recording of the conversation of Ex.P.3[b]. In such circumstances, there are no materials on record to hold that the accused himself had made phone call to No.100, police control room concealing his identity and gave false statement stating that, a bomb is placed at Nandini Hotel at Upparpet or at Bengaluru City Railway Station.
32. Merely on the ground that 9620369665 phone number was used to make a call to No.100, the police control room, it cannot be accepted that the accused himself gave false statement stating that a bomb is placed near Nandini hotel, Upparpet or Bengaluru City Railway station and created fear in the mind of the public. The evidence led by PW.1 to 7 is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offences. The evidence of PW.1 to 7 is not 17 C.C.No.14893/2017 helpful to the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, from the evidence led before the court, the allegations made against the accused will not be proved. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in Negative.
Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the charges of Sec.505[b], 507 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
25.10.2022 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU 18 C.C.No.14893/2017 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : S.Jayaramaiah PW.2 : Khasim PW.3 : Anitha.Y.S., PW.4 : M.Nagarajaiah PW.5 : Basavarajaiah PW.6 : Bhaskar PW.7 : Bailanjenaya PW.8 : Anand Naik
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint/report Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : Call details Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3[b] : Relevant entry of call Ex.P.4 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4[a] : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.4[b] : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.5 : Report given by PW.5 Ex.P.5[a] : Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.6 : Voluntary Statement of accused 19 C.C.No.14893/2017 Ex.P.6[a] : portion of voluntary statement LIST OF PROPERTY MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Nil LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
Ex.D.1 : Remand application Ex.D.1[a] : Signature of PW.7 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 22.10.2022
Transcribed on : 25.10.2022
checked on : 25.10.2022
Signed on : 25.10.2022
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS