Bangalore District Court
The State By Sadashivanagara vs A1. Lakshman on 4 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.ACMM,
BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA.L., LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.16737/2017
Dated : On this the 04th August, 2021
Complainant: The State by Sadashivanagara
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Assistant Public Prosecutor).
V/s
Accused: A1. Lakshman,
S/o late Joggiri,
A2. Prem @ Prem Thapa,
S/o Ram Thapa
Both are residing at Tal Kot Grama,
Datola Taluk, Bajang District,
Nepal
(By Sri.D.Gopi Advocate)
Date of Report of Offence : 25032017
Name of the Complainant : P.C.Raju
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 26092018
Date of Closing of evidence : 16032021
25 CC16737/2017
Offences complained are : u/s 457 & 380 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM,
Bengaluru
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PI of Sadashivanagara PS has filed charge
sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable u/s 457 & 380 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
That on 24032017, the CW6 was working as
security at Kendriya Vidyalaya situated at C.V.Raman
road during day hours and at 6.40 PM he after locking
the key of office room, computer science room and
principal chamber of the said school handed over the
key to Sri.Raj Gopal and went to his home. On next day
that is on 25032017 at about 7.30 AM, when he came
back to the said school for his duty, at that time the
25 CC16737/2017
front door of the said school was opened and the door of
room situated nearby to the principal chamber was also
opened and thereafter CW6 had informed the said fact
to Vice Principal. Thereafter when they entered the
school and when they examined inside, some unknown
persons had committed the theft of HCL CPU, Monitor,
Video CameraLogitech, Dongals, Two Wireless Mouse
and One Key Board, Extention Box (White Colour),
Network Switch, Colour Printer, Telephone instrument,
LCD TV, HP CPU, Key Board, Monitor, 2 DVR, Camera
in Front Corridor.
3. Based on complaint given by the complainant,
the police have registered a case against accused no.1 &
2 and after investigation has filed charge sheet against
the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s
457 & 380 of IPC. During crime stage itself the accused
no.1 & 2 were produced before the court and later on
they were enlarged on bail.
25 CC16737/2017
4. After filing of the charge sheet this court had
taken cognizance against the accused no.1 & 2 for the
offences punishable u/s 457 & 380 of IPC. Thereafter
heard the prosecution and counsel for the accused
persons about framing of charge. Since there were
sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused
persons, charges were framed u/s 457 & 380 of IPC.
The sum and substance of the accusation was read over
to the accused persons and their answers to the said
accusation was denial and they claimed to be tried.
Hence the prosecution was given an opportunity to
establish the guilt of the accused persons.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt
of the accused it got examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to 7.
Along with oral evidence the prosecution got marked
documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to P6.
25 CC16737/2017
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of the accused as contemplated u/s 313
of Cr.P.C was recorded. Their answers to incriminating
circumstances arised in the evidence was denial and
not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused.
8. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 24032017 during night hours accused persons had tress passed into a room next to the Principal chamber of Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, Sadashivanagara, Bangalore, in order to commit theft and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 457 of IPC?
25 CC16737/2017
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and during the same transaction accused no.1 & 2 had committed theft of HCL CPU, Monitor, Video CameraLogitech, Dongals, Two Wireless Mouse and One Key Board, Extention Box (White Colour), Network Switch, Colour Printer, Telephone instrument, LCD TV, HP CPU, Key Board, Monitor, 2 DVR, Camera of Front Corridor without the knowledge of its owner and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 380 of IPC?
3. What Order?
9. The findings of this Court on above points are as under: Point No.1 : In Negative Point No.2 : In Negative Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following: 25 CC16737/2017 REASONS
10. POINT No.1 & 2 : Both these points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and appreciation of the evidence, both these points are taken up together for common consideration.
11. That on 24032017, the CW6 was working as security at Kendriya Vidyalaya situated at C.V.Raman road during day hours and at 6.40 PM he after locking the key of office room, computer science room and principal chamber of the said school handed over the key to Sri.Raj Gopal and went to his home. On next day that is on 25032017 at about 7.30 AM, when he came back to the said school for his duty, at that time the front door of the said school was opened and the door of room situated nearby to the principal chamber was also opened and thereafter CW6 had informed the said fact to Vice Principal. Thereafter when 25 CC16737/2017 they entered the school and when they examined inside, some unknown persons had committed the theft of HCL CPU, Monitor, Video CameraLogitech, Dongals, Two Wireless Mouse and One Key Board, Extention Box (White Colour), Network Switch, Colour Printer, Telephone instrument, LCD TV, HP CPU, Key Board, Monitor, 2 DVR, Camera in Front Corridor.
12. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused, it got examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to
7. The PW1 is the witness to the spot mahazar. PW2 is the staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya who deposed about the incident and also witness to the seizure mahazar. PW3 is the principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal who deposed about the incident, PW4 is the witness to the seizure mahazar, PW5 is the police constable who arrested the accused and partly investigated the case, PW7 is the PI who filed charge sheet against the accused. Along with the oral evidence the prosecution 25 CC16737/2017 got marked 6 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which includes the complaint, mahazar, seizure mahazar, report of arrest given by PW5 and FIR.
13. Now it is necessary to analyse the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution firstly got examined PW1 who is the witness to the spot mahazar. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that on 25032017 the police had drawn the mahazar in the place of incident and obtained his signature. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
14. The prosecution got examined PW2 who is the security of Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, who is the witness to the seizure mahazar. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that the police have not seized any material objects in his presence and he put his signature in the police station. The prosecution treated 25 CC16737/2017 this witness has hostile witness and cross examined by suggesting that he is the punch witness to the seizure mahazar conducted in an apartment situated at Nandini Layout and police have seized the stolen articles in the said apartment but the witness had denied the said suggestion put by the prosecution.
15. The prosecution further got examined PW3 who is the principal of said Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that on 24032017 during night hours there was theft of computer, DVR, CPU, Telephone, TV and other electronic items total worth of Rs.2,48,000/. The witness further deposed that on 25032017, when he came to the school at morning he found that there was theft of said articles and thereafter he filed complaint against the accused. The witness further deposed that on same day the police had came to the said place of incident with smearing dog force and found that the 25 CC16737/2017 said stolen articles were kept near to the compound of the school. The witness further deposed that thereafter the police took the said stolen articles to the police station. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
16. The prosecution got examined PW4 who is the witness to the seizure mahazar. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that the police have not seized any material objects in his presence and he put his signature to the seizure mahazar in police station. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined by suggesting about seizure of material objects from the house of security guard but the witness had denied the said suggestion put by the prosecution.
17. The prosecution further got examined PW5 who is the police constable who arrested the accused 25 CC16737/2017 no.1 & 2 on 27032017. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed about arresting of the accused no.1 & 2 near Govardhan Theater of Yeshwanthpura. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
18. The prosecution examined PW6 who is the PSI who registered the case and partly investigated the case. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that on the basis of complaint given by the complainant he registered a FIR against the unknown person. The witness further deposed that thereafter he went to the place of incident and drawn the mahazar and also obtained the statement of witnesses. The witness further deposed that he appointed CW7 to 9 to trace out the accused and they produced the accused before him and thereafter he arrested the accused and obtained their voluntary statement. The witness further deposed about seizure of 15 items of articles in Dinabandu 25 CC16737/2017 Nagar of Nandini layout and recording of further statement of complainant. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
19. Lastly the prosecution got examined PW7 who is the PI who filed charge sheet against the accused. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that since the investigation was already completed, he filed charge sheet against the accused on 28032017.
20. The prosecution in order to fix the liability on the accused, it should establish 2 facts in order to connect the act of the theft to the accused. The first fact to be proved by the prosecution is the theft committed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal and second fact to be proved by the prosecution is recovery of said 15 articles from the custody of the accused. In order to establish the first fact of theft, the prosecution got examined PW3 who is the principal of said Kendriya Vidyalaya School. 25 CC16737/2017 The said witness in his oral evidence deposed about the theft committed in the school on 23072017 during night hours. The prosecution has also got examined PW2 who is the security in charge of said Kendriya Vidyalaya but the said witness has turned hostile. On the basis of oral evidence of PW3 coupled with the complaint filed by the complainant which is marked as Ex.P3, it can be concluded that there was theft of articles as mentioned in the complaint from the said Kendriya Vidyalaya School.
21. The second fact which is to be established by the prosecution to link the said act of theft to the accused is about the recovery of said stolen articles from the custody of the accused no.1 and 2. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused after committing the theft of articles, kept the same in their house situated at Sahi Nandini apartment, Dinabandu Nagara. The burden lies upon the prosecution to 25 CC16737/2017 establish that the said stolen articles were recovered from the house of the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on the basis of voluntarily statement given by the accused, the accused themselves produced the said stolen articles from their house situated at Sahi Nandini Apartment, Nandini layout and the Investigating Officer has drawn the seizer mahazar as per Ex.P2. The burden lies upon the prosecution to establish about the recovery of said articles from the house of accused and also drawing of seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2. In order to establish the said fact of seizure, the prosecution got examined PW2 and 4 who are the witnesses to the seizure mahazar. Both these witness have turned hostile by deposing that the police have not seized any articles in their presence and not drawn any seizure mahazar in their presence. Even though the prosecution has made an attempt to elicit the truth from the mouth of said witness but nothing has been elicited which establish about the seizure of 25 CC16737/2017 said articles from the house of accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the second fact that the said stolen articles were recovered from the custody of the accused. The complainant who is PW3 in his examination in chief itself deposed that after filing of complaint the police had came to the said place of incident with smearing dog force squad and the said dog had shown the place wherein the articles were kept and said articles were found near the compound wall of school. The oral evidence of PW2 is contrary to the case of the prosecution that the said articles were recovered from the house of accused. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact of recovery which is the key factor to prove the guilt of the accused. When the prosecution has miserably failed to link the recovery of said articles from the custody of the accused and since there is no any eye witness to the said act of theft, it could be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish 25 CC16737/2017 that the accused had committed the theft of said electronic articles as mentioned in the complaint. The accused no.1 & 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.
22. It is the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that no man should be punished unless the guilt against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is discussed above the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused no.1 & 2 have committed the offence punishable u/s 457 & 380 of IPC. Hence for the said reasons this court answer point no.1 & 2 in negative.
23. POINT No.3 : In view of discussion held on above points, this Court proceeds to pass the following: 25 CC16737/2017
:: ORDER :: Acting u/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused no.1 & 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 457 & 420 of IPC.
The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stand cancelled.
The material object shown in the P.F.no.20/2017 dated 27.03.2017, which is given for interim custody is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of August, 2021) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : Anjaneyalu, S/o Adinarayana PW2 : Manjunath, S/o Basappa PW3 : P.C Raju, S/o P Jakarayya PW4 : Sathish, S/o Kariyappa PW5 : N.Nagaraju, S/o V.Narayanappa PW6 :Dhananjaya, S/o late N.B.Sadashivamurthy PW7 :M. Gopalakrishna Gowda, S/o Muniyappa 25 CC16737/2017
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Spot mahazar Ex.P1a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1b : Signature of PW6 Ex.P2 : Mahazar of seizure of material object Ex.P2a : Signature of PW2 Ex.P2b : Signature of PW4 Ex.P3 : Complaint Ex.P3a : Signature of PW3 Ex.P3b : Signature of PW6 Ex.P4 : Photos Ex.P5 : Requisition Ex.P5a : Signature of PW6 Ex.P6 : FIR
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution NIL
4. List of witnesses on behalf of Defence NIL
5. Documents exhibited on behalf of Defence NIL (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru 25 CC16737/2017