Bangalore District Court
Has Filed A Complaint Against The ... vs Nos.1 And 2. The Accused Nos.1 And 2 ... on 5 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 5th day of June 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.14306/2014
Date of Offence : 5-11-2013
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch
(Special Enquiry), N.T.Pet,
Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Janpal D. S/o R.S.Devid,
aged 35 years, r/o No.1/1,
1st floor, 1st cross,
opp. Anjaneya temple,
Devirachikkanahalli,
Bengaluru,
2. Suresh s/o late Raju,
aged 40 years, r/o No.200,
1st main, Hari colony,
Banashankari I Stage,
Bengaluru 82.
Offence complained off: U/s. 392 of IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 5-6-2018.
2 C.C.No.14306/2014
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime branch (Special Enquiry), N.T. Pet, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 5-11-2013 at about 6-30 a.m. when C.W.1 was walking at Kumaraswamy Layout, 50 feet road, Bengaluru in front of Andhra Idli hotel, the accused No.2 being the rider of the motorcycle and accused No.1 being the pillion rider, came from behind and accused No.1 forcibly snatched away the golden chain weighing 30 grams worth Rs.60,000/- from the neck of C.W.1 and ran away. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the jurisdictional Police. Accordingly, the Kumaraswamy Layout Police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC in Crime No.390/2013. Thereafter, the matter has been transferred to Central Crime Branch (Special Enquiry) for investigation. After completion of 3 C.C.No.14306/2014 investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offence.
3. After appearance of the accused necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused Nos.1 and 2 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 17 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, C.Ws.1, 4, 9, 7, 11, 16, 14, 13, 12 and 10 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 10 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and identified M.O.1. C.W.15 is reported to be dead and his death certificate was filed before the court. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
4 C.C.No.14306/2014
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC?
2. What order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following: 5 C.C.No.14306/2014
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that, on 5-11-2013 at about 6-30 a.m. when C.W.1 was walking at Kumaraswamy Layout, 50 feet road, Bengaluru in front of Andhra Idli hotel, the accused No.2 being the rider of the motorcycle and accused No.1 being the pillion rider, came from behind and accused No.1 forcibly snatched away the golden chain weighing 30 grams worth Rs.60,000/- from the neck of C.W.1 and ran away and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, C.W.1 is examined as P.W.1. In the course of chief-examination itself in page No.1, P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect:
2013gÀ°è MAzÀÄ ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ JA¢£ÀAvÉ 6 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁPï ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 50 ¦üÃmï gÉÆÃr£À°gè ÀĪÀ DAzsÁæ Erè ºÉÆÃmɯï 6 C.C.No.14306/2014 ªÀÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è £À£Àß PÀwÛ£° À èzÀÝ ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß QüÀĪÁUÀ GUÀÄgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ©zÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ D §UÉÎ UÉÆvÁÛzÁUÀ »A¢¤AzÀ AiÀiÁgÉÆà E§âgÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï¤AzÀ ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. The evidence of P.W.1 as above clearly shows that somebody has snatched away her golden chain from her neck in the year 2013 at about 6 a.m. The evidence of P.W.1 is not specific about the commission of theft by the accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint against unknown person as per Ex.P1. It is further deposed by P.W.1 in page No.1, para No.2 to the following effect:
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÀqÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÀîgÀ£ÀÄß »r¢zÁÝV UÉÆvÁÛV £ÁªÀÅ ¹¹© PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃV QvÀÄPÛ ÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄä ¸Àgª À £À ÀÄß £ÉÁÄÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above further establishes that from the information given by police she went to the police station and identified her golden chain. This evidence is also not specific that the accused No.1 and 2 have 7 C.C.No.14306/2014 committed the said theft. It is very important point to be noted at this stage itself that in order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence of theft, identification of accused persons is very important or the seizure of theft article from the possession of the accused must be proved. But in the chief-examination in page No.2, P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect:
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the identification of accused persons. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the alleged offence of theft by the accused No.1 and 2.
10. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is the seizure mahazar witness. But in the chief-examination P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛ®è. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ mÉç¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É K£ÉÆà EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ DzÀgÉ CzÀÄ K£ÀÄ CAvÀ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛ®è.8 C.C.No.14306/2014
¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ K£ÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £É£¦ À ®è.
Since P.W.2 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure mahazar, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to prove the seizure mahazar, because all the suggestions made in the course of cross-examination have been denied by P.W.2 emphatically. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. C.W.9 is examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 is the Police Inspector who has deposed in the chief-examination to the following effect:
§£À±AÀ PÀjAiÀÄ ¸ÁgÉ §AqÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÀĹâAiÀÄ §½ EgÀĪÀ GzÀAiÀiïgÁeï ©ÃªÀiïgÁeï ¥sÁ£À ¨ÉÆÃæPÀgïì CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É. ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉê Û É. DUÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ F 9 C.C.No.14306/2014 CAUÀrAiÀĪÀjUÉ CAzÀgÉ ©üêÀiïgÁeï gÀªÀjUÉ 2 ZÉÊ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛg.É The evidence of P.W.3 as above is with regard to the arrest of the accused persons on the information given by informants and also seizure of theft articles from the shop of Udayram Bheemraj who was the pawn broker. According to the prosecution, the complainant has lost her golden chain on 5-11-2013, but the accused persons were arrested on the statement given by them with regard to theft after six months. In fact, he has deposed in further chief-examination in page No.2 to the following effect:
¥Àæ²ßvÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÀĪÀÅ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛªÉ JAzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
It is also important point to the be noted at this stage itself that under what circumstances, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have confessed their offence, which is totally vague. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to arresting of 10 C.C.No.14306/2014 accused persons is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
12. C.W.7 is examined as P.W.4. P.W.4 has deposed with regard to the alleged incident as well as drawing of spot mahazar by the police and also seizure of articles. The evidence of P.W.4 cannot be considered, because P.Ws.2 and 4 were recalled on the application field by the accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed and warrants have been issued to P.Ws.2 and 4, but they have not appeared before the court for subjecting them for cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 cannot be considered to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
13. C.W.11 is examined as P.W.5. P.W.5 is a police constable who has deposed in chief-examination to the following effect:
¨sÁwäzÁgÀjAzÀ §AzÀ RavÀ ªÀiÁ»w ªÉÄÃgÀÉUÉ «dAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPÀ PÀÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ°è E§âgÀÄ ¨Ágï ªÀÄÄAzÉUÀqÉ ¤AwzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ eÁ£À¥Á¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄgÉñï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¹QÌgÀÄvÁÛgÉ 11 C.C.No.14306/2014 CªÀgÀ §½ MAzÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÅà §tÚzÀ ¥À®ìgÀ ªÁºÀ£À EvÀÄÛ. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ FUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The evidence of P.W.5 as above is with regard to the arrest of accused persons on the basis of credible information with regard to the commission of theft. As already discussion above, there is no whisper anything about the circumstances under which the accused Nos.1 and 2 have confessed the offence of theft so as to attract an offence under Section 392 of IPC. Therefore the evidence adduced by the prosecution is absolutely vague. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of P.W.5, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross- examined him in detail, in which P.W.5 has deposed in page No.2, para No.2 and 3 to the following effect:
ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ ¨ÁåAPÀgÀì£À CZÀ®gÁA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÀsVgÀvï CªÀgÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt PÉÊæA ¸ÉÖÃd£À°è 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ DVzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è.12 C.C.No.14306/2014
¤¦-5 PÀA¥ÀÇålgÀ ¦æAmï EgÀÄvÀz Û É JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¤¦-5gÀ°è SÁ° eÁUÀz° À è £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d.
The evidence of P.W.5 as above is totally unsustainable, because there is no material evidence on record to prove that the vehicles seized by the police are belongs to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and further there is no evidence to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have used the said vehicles for commission of theft. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
14. C.W.16 is examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 is a Police Inspector who has registered the case on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant in Crime No.390/2013 under Section 392 of IPC. It is very important point to be noted at this stage itself that according to the complainant, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the theft of golden chain in front of their house, but the case has been registered under Section 392 of IPC, is not sustainable, because commission of theft as alleged amounts to only 13 C.C.No.14306/2014 theft, but not robbery. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC will no attract. Hence, registration of case for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is also not sustainable.
15. C.W.14 is examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer who has deposed according to the official duty discharged by him during investigation. Though P.W.7 was not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, his evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, either to identify the accused persons or seizure of the theft article from their possession. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
16. C.W.13 is examined as P.W.8. P.W.8 is a Police Constable who has arrested the accused persons as directed by his Senior officer. As already discussed above, mere arresting of accused persons in the absence of material evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons, his evidence is not sustainable.
14 C.C.No.14306/2014
17. The counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.8 in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.8 has deposed in page No.3 and 4 to the following effect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥À®ìgï ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ05EªÉÊ 860 EzÀÄ 2£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄzÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄä ¦L EªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë vÁªÀÅ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ¦L gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. The evidence of P.W.8 as above is not sufficient to prove that the alleged vehicles seized by the police were used by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and those vehicles are belongs to them. The police have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that those vehicle are belongs to them. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. 15 C.C.No.14306/2014
18. C.W.12 is examined as P.W.9. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer who has also deposed according to investigation conducted by him. To test the veracity of P.W.9, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.9 has deposed to the following effect:
¥ÀAZÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ PÉÆlÖ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀįÁèU° À à CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀįÁèUÀ°Ã ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-4¹, ¤¦- 6¹, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-8J ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¦¯ïE£ïzÀ ¨ÁèAPïì£À°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-4, ¤¦-6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-8 mÉʦAUï ¥ÁgïªÉÄmï£À°è EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-4¹ ¤¦-6¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-8J ¸À» PɼÀUÀqÉ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¤¦-4¹, ¤¦-6¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-8J ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ¯ÉÃè ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d.16 C.C.No.14306/2014
The evidence of P.W.9 as above is totally devoid of valid basis, because Exs.P4, 6 and 8 are all created and they are all in format and they have not signed by the proper persons. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.9 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. C.W.10 is examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 is another Investigating Officer who has deposed according to the investigation conducted by him. It is pertinent to note that, the cross-examination of P.W.10 was deferred, but subsequently the counsel appearing for the accused has made an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.10. The said application was alwoed, but subsequently P.W.10 was not subjected for cross-examination. Therefore as per order dated 2-2-2018, P.W.10 was discharged. Hence, the evidence of P.W.10 cannot be considered to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 10 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offence. 17 C.C.No.14306/2014 Moreover, for further clarification, as already discussed above, the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is not at all attract, but the police have registered the case under wrong provision. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasonings, I am of the firm pinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal for the alleged offence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
20. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 stands cancelled.18 C.C.No.14306/2014
The order made with regard to the interim custody of the M.O.1 gold chain is made absolute. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of June 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Smt.Jayamma, P.W.2, Anand S.Kunigal, P.W.3, D.J.Kiran, P.W.4, Ravikumar H, P.W.5, Mohammed Shafiulla, P.W.6, R.C.Lokesh Kumar, P.W.7, Mahadevaiah C.J, P.W.8, Praveen Kumar K.S, P.W.9, Murthy, P.W.10, Dayanand Shegunasi;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2, Mahazar,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P3, Photograph,
Ex.P4, Further statement of P.W.1,
Ex.P4(c), Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P5, Attested true copy of seizure mahazar,
19 C.C.No.14306/2014
Ex.P5(a), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P5(b), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P6, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P6(b), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P6(c), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P7, Photo of Pulsar motorcycle,
Ex.P8, Reminder,
Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P9, Requisition,
Ex.P9(a), Signature of P.W.10,
Ex.P10, Report,
Ex.P10(a), Signature of P.W.10;
Material Objects Produced:-
M.O.1, Gold chain,
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.20 C.C.No.14306/2014
5/6/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 stands cancelled.
The order made with regard to the interim custody of the M.O.1 gold chain is made absolute.
(V.Jagadeesh) I ACMM, Bengaluru.21 C.C.No.14306/2014
22 C.C.No.14306/2014