Bangalore District Court
Sathish C K vs Nagendra J on 15 February, 2024
1
KABC030828092019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU
PRESENT : Sri. Vijeth. V., B.A.L., LL.B.,
39th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 26833/2019
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
BETWEEN :
COMPLAINANT : The State by,
Vidhanasoudha Police Station
(By learned APP)
ACCUSED : 1. Nagendra .J, S/o Junjappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.88, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross Road, Brigade Apartments
Opposite Road, Garudachar Palya,
Bangalore.
2. Ramesh .R, S/o Late Ramappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.46, 1st Main Road,
7th Cross Road, Ayyappa Nagara,
K.R. Puram, Bangalore.
[Rep. by A1 - Sri. M. Mahanthesh Advt.]
1. Date of offences : 19.03.2018
2. Date of report : 01.06.2019
2 C.C.26833/2019
3. Name of the complainant : Sri. Sathish C.K.
4. Date of recording evidence : 10.02.2021
5. Date of closure of evidence : 30.08.2023
6. offencess alleged : U/Sec. 365 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC.
7. Opinion of the judge : Acquittal
(Vijeth .V)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru.
: JUDGMENT :
The PSI, Vidhanasoudha Police Station has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.365 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
That on 19.03.2018 at 10.30 pm the accused No.2 as per the say of accused No.1 have kidnapped Cw2 and Cw3 from Parag Hotel by falsely promising them to provide job at another hotel and kept Cw2 and Cw3 under unlawful custody. As such a complaint has been registered against accused No.1 and 2.
3. A Case is registered in Vidhanasoudha Police Station as Crime No.18/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 365, 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. After completion of investigation 3 C.C.26833/2019 charge sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.365 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and this court has taken cognizance for the above said offences.
4. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and they have been enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to accused No.1 and 2 as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard both sides, charge has been framed, read over and explained the contents to accused No.1 and 2 in the language known them, wherein the accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has examined 05 witness as PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused No.1 and 2 as required under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is recorded, read over and explained to accused No.1 and 2 in the language known to them, wherein the accused No.1 and 2 denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them but they have not choosen to lead any evidence from their side.
6. Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
4 C.C.26833/2019
7. The following points that arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 19.03.2018 at 10.30 pm the accused No.2 as per the say of accused No.1 have kidnapped Cw2 and Cw3 from Parag Hotel by falsely promising them to provide job at another hotel and kept Cw2 and Cw3 under unlawful custody, as such he has committed offences punishable U/s.365 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final Order.
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that, on 19.03.2018 at 10.30 pm the accused No.2 as per the say of accused No.1 have kidnapped Cw2 and Cw3 from Parag Hotel by falsely promising them to provide job at another hotel and kept Cw2 and Cw3 under unlawful custody.
10. According to the prosecution Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is the witness to spot panchanama, Pw3 is the person who has downloaded CC TV footages to a pen drive, Pw4 is the ASI who has traced the accused and victims and brought to police 5 C.C.26833/2019 station and handed over to SHO, Pw5 is the investigating officer who has registered the case and partly investigated the matter.
11. The prosecution has produced and got marked Ex.P-1 is the complaint, Ex.P-2 is the further statement of Pw1, Ex.P-3 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama, Ex.P-5 is the certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P-6 is the report of Pw4, Ex.P-7 is the FIR.
12. In support of the case of prosecution it has examined Cw1 / Sathish examined as Pw1, who deposed before the court that he do not know the accused persons about two years back some unknown person came to his hotel and went with two labours by name Indrakumar and Ranjit who were working in his hotel. He do not know the name of the person who has taken away the labours. He has lodged complaint before the police, but he has not mentioned the name of the person.
Even though the witness Pw1 is treated as hostile and permitted the prosecution to cross examine the witness, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of said witness.
13. Cw4 / Sudhir examined as Pw3 deposed before the court that he was working as Assistant Property Manager in Solesaw Sapce, Arena Mall, Mahadevpura. Accused No.1 was 6 C.C.26833/2019 working as STP in charge. In the month of March - 2018, the police visited the office and took possession of accused No.1 and as per the request of police he has downloaded the CC TV footages in pen drive and handed over to police and the same was seized through panchanama marked at Ex.P.4.
In the cross examination the witness admitted that in the pen drive there is only footages regarding working of accused No.1 in the mall and he do not have any information regarding the alleged incident and he do not know who are all the signatories to the panchanama.
14. Cw7/ Intiyaz examined as Pw2 deposed before the court that about four years back he put his signature to panchanama at Vidhanasoudha police station. No panchanama was conducted in his presence and he do not know the contents of said panchanama.
Even though the witness Pw2 is treated as hostile and permitted the prosecution to cross examine the witness, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of said witness.
15. Cw9 / Ramesh examined as Pw4 deposed before the court that on 20.03.2018 he has been appointed along with Cw10 and Cw11 to trace the persons who have been kidnapped in the present case by name Indra Kumar and Ranjit. They have 7 C.C.26833/2019 collected information and they have traced the accused and the kidnapped persons in parking place of Arena Mall. The accused disclosed his name as Nagendra, the persons who are in his custody were disclosed their names as Indra Kumar and Ranjit, as such they were brought to police station and handed over to SHO at 8.30 pm and submitted report as per Ex.P.6.
In the cross examination nothing has been elicited except mere suggestion of denial.
16. Cw12 / Mahadevaiaha, A.S.I. examined as Pw5 deposed before the court that on 20.03.2018 at 1.00 pm when he was in charge of the police station he received a typed complaint from Cw1 and registered a case as Cr.No.18/2018 and submitted FIR to the court. He has appointed Cw9 to cw11 to trace the persons who have been kidnapped. On the same day, the accused No.1 and the kidnapped persons namely Indra Kumar and Ranjit were brought before him by Cw9 along with report. He has arrested the accused. He has recorded statements of Cw9 to Cw11. He has recorded voluntary statement of accused. In the voluntary statement the accused No.1 disclosed that one Ramesh who was his cousin informed him to bring three persons from Parag Hotel, as such he has taken the three persons to the house of his uncle situated at 8 C.C.26833/2019 Ayyappa Nagar. On 21.03.2018 he has secured the presence of accused No.2 and produced the accused No.1 and 2 to the court along with remand application. He has seized the pen drive consisting of CC TV footages through seizure panchanama marked at Ex.P.4 and submitted PF to the court. He has collected Ex.P.5 certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and he has recorded the statement of Pw4 to Pw6 and handed over the file to Cw13 for further investigation.
In the cross examination nothing has been elicited except mere suggestion of denial.
17. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has examined five witnesses out of its list of 13 witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution Pw1 is the complainant who deposed before the court that, he do not know the accused persons about two years back some unknown person came to his hotel and went with two labours by name Indrakumar and Ranjit who were working in his hotel. He do not know the name of the person who has taken away the labours. He has lodged complaint before the police, but he has not mentioned the name of the person and the said witness totally turned hostile. It is significant to note that as per the case of the prosecution, Cw2 and Cw3 are the persons who have said to be kidnapped 9 C.C.26833/2019 by accused No.1 and 2. But in spite of sufficient opportunities the prosecution failed to examine the material witnesses i.e., Cw2 and Cw3. With out the evidence of kidnapped persons i.e., Cw2 and Cw3 at no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the accused persons have kidnapped Cw2 and Cw3. Moreover as already discussed above the complainant himself turned hostile and he has not even used the word of kidnap in the chief examination nor stated the names of accused persons nor identified them. The evidence of Pw4 and Pw5 is with respect to investigation process, as such it need not require detail consideration. As the prosecution failed to examine the material witnesses and also as the complainant himself turned hostile as such it is not safe to book the accused persons to guilty. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1 in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 365 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.10 C.C.26833/2019
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly to the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 15th day of February 2024 ).
(Vijeth .V) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Number of witnesses examined for Prosecution:
PW-1 : Sathish C. K. PW-2 : Imtiyaz PW-3 : Sudhir PW-4 : Ramesh PW-5 : S. Mahadevaiah
Number of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint, Ex.P-2 : Further statement of Pw1, Ex.P-3 : Spot panchanama, Ex.P-4 : Seizure panchanama, Ex.P-5 : Certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P-6 : Report of Pw4, Ex.P-7 : FIR. For Defence : Nil Material objects Marked: Nil VIJETH Digitally signed by VIJETH V V Date: 2024.02.17 16:47:43 +0530 (Vijeth .V) XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU. 11 C.C.26833/2019