Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By The Police Sub­Inspector vs ) Suhail Pasha S/O. Jameer Pasha on 8 April, 2022

                         1
                                             S.C. No. 1528/2019

   COURT OF LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
      JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
                     (CCH­58)

                         Present:
             Smt. K.G.Shanthi, B.Com, LL.M.,
           LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
                Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

                : S.C.No.1528/2019 :


           Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022.


Complainant:­     State by the Police Sub­Inspector,
                  Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station,
                  Bangalore.

                  (By Public Prosecutor)

                               ­ V/s ­

Accused:          1) Suhail Pasha S/o. Jameer Pasha,
                    Aged about 22 years,
                     R/at No.936, 4th Cross,
                     Govindapura Main Road,
                     Arabic College, Tannery Road,
                     Bangalore.

                  2) Shabeer Ahmed S/o. Shakeel Ahmed,
                     Aged about 23 years,
                     R/at No.365, 6th Cross,
                     Gandhi Nagar,
                     Near Railway Gate,
                     K.G.Halli, Bangalore.

                    (Repted. by Sri.A.A.K., Adv. for A1, A2)
                                  2
                                                       S.C. No. 1528/2019

                               JUDGMENT

The Ramamurthy Nagar Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 397 of IPC.

2. There is an allegation against the accused that on 27.01.2016 at about 1­00 a.m. at Kasturinagara, near Sadananda bridge within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 and 2 came in a Pulsar Motor cycle and restrained the complainant and made an assault on the left hand with machu and caused grievous injury, then robbed the micromax mobile phone of the complainant and thereby committed offence punishable u/s. 397 IPC.

3. In this regard, Sri.Vinodkumar Reddy, complainant lodged a complaint 27.01.2016 at 5­00 A.M.. On receipt of complaint Police have registered the FIR for the punishable U/Sec.397 IPC and proceeded with the investigation.

S.C. No. 1528/2019

4. During the course of investigation the I.O has recorded the spot mahazar and seized material objects. In the charge sheet CW1 to CW10 cited as witnesses. As per charge sheet CW1 is the complainant, CW2 and CW3 are the spot mahazar witnesses. CW4 and CW5 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. CW6 to CW8 are Police officials. CW9 is the Medical Officer and CW10, who arrested the accused and filed charge sheet.

5. On filing of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and in turn the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore made over the case to this court for trial. On seeing the records summons issued to the accused. They appeared through their Advocate. Accused No.1 and 2 are released on bail.

6. Heard before charge. Since there are prima­facie material to frame charge against accused, charges framed, 4 S.C. No. 1528/2019 read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.

8. In this case there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused. Hence, recording of statement U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed.

9. Heard arguments.

10. The Points arose for my consideration :­

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 27.01.2016 at about 1­00 a.m the accused No.1 and 2 made an assault on CW1 and robbed the mobile phone and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 394 r/w. 397 of IPC?

2. What order?

11. My findings on the above points are as under:­ Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per the final order for ­the following:

S.C. No. 1528/2019 REASONS

12. Point No.1:­ According to the prosecution on on 27.01.2016 at about 1­00 a.m. at Kasturinagara, near Sadananda bridge within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 and 2 came in a Pulsar Motor cycle and restrained the complainant and made an assault on the left hand with machu and caused grievous injury, robbed his Micromax mobile phone.

13. PW1 is Head Constable, in his evidence deposed that on 27.01.2016 he himself and one Prathap were deputed to trace­out the accused, who were involved in a offence U/Sec. 397 of IPC. Accordingly, both of them were searching the accused in the Ramamurthy Nagar jurisdiction and came to know that three persons in a motorcycle met with an accident and admitted to Victoria Hospital. Accordingly, he went to Victoria Hospital and met Doctor, Doctor said that those persons are not severely 6 S.C. No. 1528/2019 injured. On enquiry he come to know that their names are Suhail Pasha and Shabeer Ahmed. He brought them to the Police Station and produced before his higher authority along with report. He identified the accused before the court. The report is marked as Ex.P.1. The signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.1(a)

14. PW2 is the ASI. In his evidence he deposed that on 27.01.2016 when he was in SHO of Police Station, he came to know that near Sadananda Bridge some persons made an assault on some person and robbed the mobile phone. Hence, he deputed ASI Shivakumar to record the statement of injured. Accordingly at about 1­00 p.m. Shivakumar brought the statement of the injured and on receipt of the same he registered the case in Crime No.50/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of IPC and sent the FIR to the jurisdictional court and also to the higher officer. He deposed that he handed over the records to P.I for further investigation. The complaint is marked as Ex.P.2. The signature of the witness marked as Ex.P.2(a). 7

S.C. No. 1528/2019 FIR is marked as Ex.P.3. The signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.3(a).

15. According to the prosecution, CW1 lodged a complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.2. The said statement of complainant recorded by PW2. On looking into the complaint, it reflects that when the complainant was proceeding near Sadananda bridge two persons came in a Motor cycle and restrained him and snatched the mobile and another person tried to made an attack with machu, when the complainant tried to rescue by keeping hand across his head and he sustained injury on left hand palm. According to the complaint, he pushed those persons and ran­away from the spot and went to the house of one Venkatesh and said Venkatesh taken him to the hospital. In the complaint he has stated some unknown persons made an attack on him.

16. It is pertinent to note that in the charge sheet the investigating officer cited witness as CW1 to CW10. 8

S.C. No. 1528/2019 But inspite of repeated summons and warrants the witnesses are not secured inspite proclamation and warrant also issued against CW1 to CW5 and issued non­ bailable warrant against CW6 to CW10. The State secured only two Police officials CW6 & CW8 and examined them as PW1 and PW2. Inspite of warrant the Police officials also not secured. CW1 and mahazar witnesses are not secured by the prosecution.

17. It is pertinent to note that, according to the complaint one Venkatesh taken the injured to the hospital. But the investigating officer not cited Venkatesh as witness in the charge sheet.

18. Inspite of coercive steps material witnesses not secured by the State and Prosecution not able to examine them. PW1 in his evidence deposed that, when he was in paroling duty within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, he came to know that three persons came in a Motor cycle met with an accident and admitted to 9 S.C. No. 1528/2019 Victoria Hospital. According to prosecution two persons came in a Motor cycle and robbed the complainant. As per the version of the complaint also that, one Venkatesh taken the complainant to the hospital for treatment. So, evidence of PW1 that he came to know three persons in a motor cycle met with an accident, hence, he went to hospital and made an enquiry with the Doctor is contradictory to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the PW1 does not reflects that he suspected these accused persons involved for the commission of the offence of robbery, hence, he had taken them to the Police station. There is no evidence to show that what is the basis for PW1 to go to Victoria Hospital and how he come to know that these accused persons are involved in commission of the robbery is not elicited in the mouth of the witness by the prosecution.

19. PW2 is registered the case on receiving the complaint through Police. The evidence of PW1 and 2 is no way helpful for the prosecution to prove that on 10 S.C. No. 1528/2019 27.01.2016 at 1­00 A.M. at Kasturinagara, near Sadananda bridge the accused no.1 and 2 came in a motor cycle and restrained the complainant and made an assault on the left hand with machu and caused grievous injury and robed the Micromax mobile phone from CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.394 r/w. 397 of IPC. So, I am of the considered opinion that, the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in Negative.

20. Point No.2:­ In view of the finding I proceed to pass the following:­ ORDER Acting u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 394 r/w. 397 of IPC.

Their bail bond stands cancelled.

The accused No.1 and 2 shall comply the provisions U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. and shall 11 S.C. No. 1528/2019 execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/­ each with one surety for likesum for their appearance before higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment.

(Dictated to the Judgment­writer, transcribed and computerized by him and after carrying out corrections by me, print out taken by him and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.) (Smt.K.G. Shanthi) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution:­ PW.1 : Raju PW.2 : S.C.Krishnappa List of documents marked for the Prosecution: ­ Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW2 12 S.C. No. 1528/2019 List of M.Os. marked for prosecution :­ NIL LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

13 S.C. No. 1528/2019 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER Acting u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 394 r/w. 397 of IPC.

Their bail bond stands cancelled.

The accused No.1 and 2 shall comply the provisions U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. and shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/­ each with one surety for likesum for their appearance before higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment. LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

14 S.C. No. 1528/2019