Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1:- Sunil Kumar @ Sanni @ Bisket Sunil on 21 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU
(CCH-20)
Present:
Smt. Yermal Kalpana, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 21 st day of April, 2023
S.C.No. 1069/2015
Complainant:- The State of Karnataka,
By Indira Nagar Police Station,
Bengalore.
Vs.
Accused No.1:- Sunil Kumar @ Sanni @ Bisket Sunil
S/o Late Nagaraj
Aged about 32 years, No.251, 1st
Main, Jayanagar, 4th 'T' Block, 1st
Block, Bengaluru 560 011
[A.2 to 5 split up]
J U D G M E N T
The Police Inspector of Indiranagar Police station, Bengaluru has filed charge sheet in this case in Crime No.260/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 5. This case pertains to the accused No.1 and case against the accused Nos.2 to 5 is split up. 3
SC No.1069/2015
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 14.07.2012 at around 9.45 p.m. near the Lakshmipura graveyard, within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar Police Station, the accused No.1 along with the accused Nos.2 to 5 (against whom the case is split up) with the common intention of committing robbery of the public of their money, mobile and valuables, being in possession of dangerous weapons, had made preparation to commit robbery by standing by the side of the graveyard, and all the accused persons were lying in wait for arrival of public to rob them and had assembled there for the purpose of committing dacoity. On getting credible information, C.W.1- the Sub-Inspector of Police raided the place along with his officials and panchas and after surrounding the accused, out of them two of them absconded, the accused were arrested and mahazar prepared at the spot and registered 4 SC No.1069/2015 this case for the offences punishable under sections-399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Hence, on the complaint lodged by the complainant, the case was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 5.
3. The accused No.1 to 5 were arrested and produced before the JMFC Court and remanded to the judicial custody. The accused Nos.2 to 5 remained absconding and hence the case against them was split up. This case is pertaining to the accused No.1. After the charge sheet was filed, this case was sent to this Court vide committal order dtd.27.05.2015. After hearing both the parties on charge, the charge was framed against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under sections-399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
SC No.1069/2015
4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 5 witnesses out of the 8 witnesses. The prosecution has got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 documents and MOs. 1 to 3.
5. The statement of the accused No.1 under section- 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused No.1 has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen not to lead defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments and perused the materials on record.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 5, had made preparation for committing dacoity and 6 SC No.1069/2015 thereby committed the offence u/s.399 of IPC.?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 along with the accused Nos.2 to 5, had assembled at the place of incident for the purpose of committing dacoity and thereby committed the offence u/s.402 of IPC.?
3) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1&2:- These points are interconnected and hence they are taken up together for discussion.
10. The prosecution in support of its case has examined. PW.1-Giriraju G.Y.- the then Sub Inspector of 7 SC No.1069/2015 Police; P.W.2- Raja the independent mahazar witness, PW3 : D Kumar the Investigating Officer, PW4: Fairoz Khan and PW5 Basavaraj Lamani the police officials who had accompanied PW1.
11. The complainant Sri.Giriraj G.Y the then Sub Inspector of Police has been examined as PW.1 and he has deposed before the Court that on 14.07.2012 at about 9.50 pm when he was in the police station he received a credible information that 5 persons were lying in wait near Lakshmipura cemetery, Indira Nagar armed with deadly weapons and planning to commit dacoity and hence he secured the pancha's CW2 and 3 and by securing his staff and went to the spot along with his staff CW4 to 7 and two panchas-CW.2 &3 and after confirming about the information, he along with his staff and panchas went to the spot and they caught hold of all the three accused 8 SC No.1069/2015 persons and two of them ran away from the spot. PW.1 caught hold of the accused No.1 and he was found in possession of a knife measuring one feet and CW4 and 5 caught hold of the accused No.2 and 3 and they were found in possession of a wooden club measuring 2 ½ feet and chilly powder packet respectively. PW1 has also deposed that on enquiry he came to know the names of the persons who had run away as Ravi and Karan. PW.1 has further deposed that he has drawn the mahazar Ex.P.1 at the spot and seized the articles in the presence of the panch witnesses between 10.15 pm to 11.05 pm and he has identified his signature Ex.P.1(a). PW.1 has further deposed that he has submitted a report to the PSI as per Ex.P.2 and his signature is at Ex.P.2(a). He has identified the MO.1 to 3 - which were seized from the accused persons. 9
SC No.1069/2015
12. P.W.1 was cross examined in length by the counsel for the accused and it was elicited that the place near the cemetery are lit with lights and also that the place where the accused were standing was also lit with lights and that there are several residential houses near the spot. He has denied that he has created the MOs.1 to 3 and prepared mahazar in the police station.
13. P.W.2 Raja - the independent seizure witness has deposed that he was asked to accompany PW1 along with his staff in respect of the credible information received by PW1 regarding the presence of the accused persons at the spot for committing dacoity. PW2 has also deposed about the accused persons being apprehended at the spot and conduction of the seizure mahazar Ex.P1 at the spot, he has also identified the M.O.1 to 3 which were alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused 10 SC No.1069/2015 persons. PW2 during the course of his cross-examination, has stated that he had not gone to apprehend the accused persons and that he cannot recollect which accused persons were particularly apprehended by the officials, he has also admitted that there were lights installed near the spot and that the spot is the busy locality.
14. PW.3- D. Kumar - The then P.I and the I.O. has deposed before the Court that on 14.07.2012 at about 11.15 pm when he was in charge of the police station, CW1 had come to the police station along with the accused No.1 to 3, seized properties and seizure panchanama Ex.P1 and the report Ex.P2 and on the basis of the report he has registered the FIR Ex.P3 and submitted it to the Court, he has also identified the accused No.1 and 2. He has also identified the M.O.1 to 3 produced by PW1 which was subjected to PF. Further PW3 has deposed that after 11 SC No.1069/2015 recording the statements of CW2 to 7 he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
15. PW.4 Fairoz Khan the then Police Constable has deposed before the Court that on 14.07.2012 PW.1 had taken him and other officials and panchas to the spot at 9.50 p.m. and they saw the accused persons at the spot and he has identified the accused No.1 present before the Court who was found in possession of a knife measuring 1 feet. He has also deposed that they have also apprehended the accused No.2 and 3 who had found in possession of wooden club and chilly powder packet I.e M.O.1 to 3 on that day at the spot and he has identified MO.1 to 3 before the Court. In his cross examination, PW.4 has admitted that there were street lights near the spot and the accused persons did not have any vehicle with them. 12
SC No.1069/2015
16. PW5 Basavaraj Lamani the then Police Constable has deposed before the Court that on 14.07.2012 PW.1 had taken him and other officials and panchas to the spot at 9.50 p.m. and they saw the accused persons at the spot and he has identified the accused No.1 present before the Court who was found in possession of a knife measuring 1 feet. He has also deposed that they have also apprehended the accused No.2 and 3 who had found in possession of wooden club and chilly powder packet I.e M.O.1 to 3 on that day at the spot and he has identified MO.1 to 3 before the Court. In his cross examination, PW.5 has admitted that there were street lights, cemetery and shops near the spot. Further he has also admitted that when they had caught hold of the accused persons, the accused persons did not try to assault them or throw chilly powder on them. 13
SC No.1069/2015 He has also admitted that the spot of incident is a busy locality.
17. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 had received the credible information about the commission of the offence alleging that about five persons armed with deadly weapons had gathered with an intention of committing dacoity. Inspite of having such an information, PW.1 was accompanied only four staffs, that too, to arrest five accused persons who were alleged to have been armed with deadly weapons.
18.The prosecution though has examined PW2 the independent seizure mahazar witness who has stated that he had accompanied PW1 to the spot where the accused persons were apprehended during the course of his cross examination he has admitted that there is a cemetery at the spot which is normally used by the public till 10.00 pm 14 SC No.1069/2015 and also that the lights are installed near the spot. Further he has also admitted that he is not able to identify all the accused persons who were at the spot or whether those persons who were present at the spot were standing or sitting when they had gone near the spot. PW2 has admitted that he is running as a scrap shop which is about 300 meters away from the spot of incident, but he has not informed the police about the alleged presence of the accused at the spot intending to commit dacoity, that too, when the alleged spot of incident was just near his shop.
19. The prosecution has led the evidences of PW.1, 3, 4 the officials witnesses and the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused persons had gathered on the said spot, which is admittedly a busy locality with cemetery and shops nearby and had arrested the five accused persons who had been the members of the 15 SC No.1069/2015 assembly at the spot having made preparation for committing the robbery. No evidence has been led by PW.1, 3 to 5 to show as to why no localities were examined.
20. The prosecution has only led the evidence of the PW1, 3 and 4 who even though on receiving credible information about the gathering of 5 persons armed with deadly weapons had gone to the spot with only 4 officials, that too, to arrest 5 persons. The investigating officer PW5 have not take any effort to visit the spot of incident or collect any further materials. Hence on considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution it creates a doubt regarding the prosecution case that the accused persons had gathered at the spot and had made preparation for committing dacoity or robbery, which has not been substantiated in this case. The material contradictions, omissions and improvements brought out in the 16 SC No.1069/2015 prosecution theory has not been properly explained either by PW.1, 4 and 5 the benefit which goes in favour of the accused persons. Hence, only on the evidence led by the prosecution, i.e of the official witnesses PW1, 4 and 5 which is not corroborated by the evidence of the independent witnesses PW2 and 3, it is not safe and sufficient to hold that the accused persons were involved in the offences alleged against them. Accordingly the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable U/s 399 and 402 of IPC beyond the all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
21. Point No.3 :- For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER 17 SC No.1069/2015 Acting u/s 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under sections-399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bail bonds of accused No.1 stands cancelled.
The Material objects of the case are directed to kept in the split up CC.
--
(Dictated by the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, pronounced by me on this 21 st day of April, 2023)
--
(YERMAL KALPANA) XXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE 18 SC No.1069/2015
1. List of witnesses examined for complainant:
P.W.1 Sri.Giriraju.G.Y
P.W.2 Sri.Raju
P.W.3 Sri.D.Kumara
P.W.4 Sri.Fairoz Khan
P.W.5 Sri.Basavaraj Lamani
2. List of witnesses examined for accused:-
NIL
3. List of documents exhibited for Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 F.I.R
4. List of documents exhibited for accused :-
Nil
5. List of Material objects exhibited:- 19
SC No.1069/2015 MO-1 : Knife MO.2 : Wooden Club MO.3 : Chilly powder packet (YERMAL KALPANA) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. 20
SC No.1069/2015 (Judgment pronounced vide separate Judgment) ORDER Acting u/s 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under sections-399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.21
SC No.1069/2015 The bail bonds of accused No.1 stands cancelled.
The Material objects of the case are directed to kept in the split up CC.
(YERMAL KALPANA) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. 22 SC No.1069/2015