Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Manohara S/O Veerabadrappa on 3 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ( C.C.H.61 )
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2019
: PRESENT :
Sri Vidyadhar Shirahatti, LL.M
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 522/2015
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Jnanabharathi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED : Manohara S/o Veerabadrappa,
Aged about 20 years, R/at
No.112, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross,
Maruthi Nagar, Bhuvaneshwari
Extension, Nagarabhavai,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.R.D, Adv)
Date of offence 17-08-2013
Date of report of offence 17-08-2013
Name of the complainant Sri.Krishnareddy
Date of commencement of 20-04-2017
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 23-08-2019
Offences complained of Sec. 397 I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri S.R.D Advocate
2 S.C.No.522/2015
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Jnanbharthi Police against accused No.1 for the offence punishable u/Sec.397 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:
That on 17-8-2013 at about 9.00am CW1 Krishna Reddy and CW4 Ramakrishna by supplying the milk had collected the money and were proceeding in their Tata 407 vehicle in front of bridge situated opposite to AK Max properties building, new ring road, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, at that time, accused persons were came in two wheeler vehicle and restrained them and extorted the money of Rs.80,000/-, and mobile phone by pointing long chopper and thereby committed offence punishable u/Sec. 397 of IPC.
3. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.397 of IPC. On receipt of the charge sheet as the accused was secured, the case has been 3 S.C.No.522/2015 committed to the Sessions Court. Since the offence alleged against accused is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned IX ACMM, Bengaluru, as per order date.27/4/2015 committed the case against accused to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru. That on committal, the case was registered as S.C.522/2015 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, accused was in judicial custody.
4. Thereafter, admitting of the case, accused was secured and on hearing the prosecution as well as defense counsel u/Sec.227 of Cr.P.C, this court framed the charge against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.397 of IPC, the contents of the charge for the above said offence read over and explained to accused in the language known to him and he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, prosecution have cited 10 witnesses, out of that prosecution examined only five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 12. 4 S.C.No.522/2015 Since, in despite of sufficient opportunity and coercive steps, the concerned police have not secured the presence of CW4 to 6 and hence, in order to render speedy justice, the evidence of prosecution taken as closed on 23/8/2019. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The case of defence is total denial of prosecution case and the defence examined none and no documents are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for accused. Perused the records.
7. The only points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 17/8/2013 at about 9.00am, within the limits of Jnanbharathi Police Station, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, New Ring road, Opp.A.K Max Properties building, accused No.1 along with other accused persons extorted Rs.80,000/- cash, mobile phone from the custody of CW2 and CW4 by showing chopper to them and 5 S.C.No.522/2015 thus committed an offence punishable u/Sec.397 of IPC.
2. What order?
8. My finding on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- In order to establish the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has placed total 10 witnesses and out of that 5 witnesses had been examined. According to prosecution, PW2 is the complainant, PW1 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar, PW3 to PW5 are the police officials. PW3 speaks about apprehending of the arrest, PW4 speaks about the receipt of the complaint and lodging of FIR to the court and PW5 Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation.
10. It is important to note that CW4 who is stated to alleged eyewitness to the prosecution case has not been examined and inspite of taking coercive steps, the complainant 6 S.C.No.522/2015 police have failed to secure him and non examination of CW4 is fatal to the case of prosecution.
11. PW2 Krishna Reddy who is stated to be the complainant in this case has deposed about the facts stated in his complaint. However, he failed to identify the accused. Hence, learned Public Prosecutor treated him as hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court.
12. PW1 Veerabhadraswamy who is stated to be the panch witness to the spot mahazar at Ex.P.1 deposed that on 17/8/2013 the complainant police summoned him to Nagabhavai II Stage, New Ring road and at that time complainant was present there and showed the scene of offence and police conducted the spot mahazar at Ex.P.1. It is relevant to note that, the accused persons have not disputed the alleged incident. However the contention of the accused 7 S.C.No.522/2015 No.1 is that he has not committed the offence alleged. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not disclosed anything against the accused No.1. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not much importance to prove the guilt of accused.
13. PW3 Malavaiah HC deposed that on 29/1/2013 himself and CW8 were entrusted the duty for trace and apprehend the accused persons in old case. Accordingly at about 6.00pm while they were in patrolling two persons by parking Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-03-HC-3042 were standing and he suspecting them enquired about them. However, they have not given proper answer and they apprehended and brought them to the police station and produced before SHO with his report as per Ex.P.4. PW3 deposed only about apprehending of arrest. In my view, the evidence of PW3 is not much importance.
14. PW4 Sunil Kumar PI, deposed on the basis of the complaint lodged by the CW1, he registered the case and 8 S.C.No.522/2015 submitted the FIR to the court and he further deposed that, on the same day he visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. He further deposed that on 14/12/2013 Upparpet police transferred document and cash of Rs.5,000/- were handed over to him and he subjected the same to PF and thereafter as per the direction of the court, he handed over the same to the interim custody of PW2 by receiving Indemnity bond and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet.
15. PW5 Krishna Kumar PI, deposed that, on 4/11/2013 CW7 and CW8 were produced two accused persons before him with report at Ex.P.4 and after arresting the accused, he recorded the statements of accused and on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused, he seized the cash of Rs.5,000/- by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.11 and thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant and then he transferred the case file and cash of Rs.5,000/- to the 9 S.C.No.522/2015 complainant police as the said property belongs to Jnanbharathi police station
16. Admittedly, PW3 to PW5 being the official witnesses have deposed in their official capacity and their evidence in formal in nature. Hence, the evidence of PW3 to PW5 will not assume much importance, in view of the hostile evidence of complainant PW1 and non examination of eyewitness CW4.
20. It is important to note that, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 397 of IPC are the accused must commit robbery or dacoity, while committing said robbery or dacoity the accused has to use deadly weapon to cause grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. The said Section 397 of IPC is imposed minimum punishment of seven years but not merely serve as being complimentary to Section 392 and 395 by regulating the punishment already provided for dacoity or robbery. When the dacoity or robbery committed was found attended upon certain 10 S.C.No.522/2015 aggravate circumstance use of deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt or attempting to cause death or grievous hurt for that reason, no doubt the provision of Section 397 of IPC will be applicable. Further, that for proving Section 397 of IPC, those who committed the grievous injury, he will be alone liable for punishment. No doubt, that the provision postulates only the independent act of the accused to be relevant to attract Section 397 of IPC and thereby inevitably negates the use of the principle of constructive or vicarious liability encrypted in Section 397 of IPC.
21. Hence, it is clear that, to attract the Provision of Sec. 397 of IPC, while committing said robbery or dacoity the accused has to use deadly weapon to cause grievous hurt or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. It is relevant to note that, though PW1 states in his examination in chief as well as complaint, the present accused persons by pointing knife have robbed, however, on perusing the entire records it discloses that, the Investigating Officer has not 11 S.C.No.522/2015 seized any deadly weapon and also such as cash and gold ornaments. Therefore, it can be held that, the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients u/Sec.397 of IPC against the accused.
22. Absolutely prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, by placing any iota of evidence, certainly accused is entitled to an acquittal, since prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused No.1, by placing convincing and cogent evidence in connection with any of the charges leveled against him. Therefore, I need not discuss much about prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the above points in the "Negative".
23. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the charge leveled against him 12 S.C.No.522/2015 for the offences punishable under Section, 397 of IPC.
The accused No.1 is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
However, bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Charge sheet Papers and Seized properties be preserved till disposal of split up charge sheet pending against accused No.2 to 5.
*** (Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of September, 2019) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Veerabhadra Swamy
PW2 Krishna Reddy
PW3 Malaviah
PW4 Sunil Kumar
PW5 Krishna Kumar
13 S.C.No.522/2015
List of witnesses examined for the defence: Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Spot mahazar Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Invoice Ex.P.4 requisition Ex.P.5 photos Ex.P.6 FIR Ex.P.7 Indemnity bond Ex.P.8 Release panchanama Ex.P.9 photos Ex.P.10 photos Ex.P.11 Seizure mahazar
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
-NIL-
(Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.14 S.C.No.522/2015