Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka Police Station vs No. : 1. S.N. Suresh on 5 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 5th day of July 2016
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.18066/2012
Complainant : State by Yelahanka Police station
(By Asst.Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. S.N. Suresh,
S/o Late Narasimhappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Sigehalli village,
Ronur Panchayathi,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Case against accused No.2 to 5 is split up)
(By M/s LS & Associates)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/s.420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2 C.C. No.18066/2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, C.W. 1 Smt. Sowmya Srikanth and C.W. 2 Shirkanth were residing at Yelahanka Judicial Layout along with their family at house No.1760, 7th Cross, 7th Main, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station. During their stay at the said house, C.W. 1's children used to fell sick often and often, her husband used to face hurdles in business, for which C.W. 3 being a driver of C.W. 1 suggested her to resolve the said problems by approaching one of his friend by name Venugopal Reddy i.e. accused No.3, who will solve her problem by way of worshiping some God. As such, on the willingness of C.W. 1, her driver i.e. C.W. 3 intimated accused No.3 and took him to C.W. 1 along with accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5, who came to the house of C.W. 1, where she informed about the hurdles facing by her family. All the accused persons in furtherance of common intention to cheat C.W. 1, told her that, as Architecture of her house is not proper, death may occur in her house and told her to perform some Pooja. On the guise of said Pooja, accused received Rs.5,50,000/- from C.W. 1. Per contra, did not perform any pooja. Therefore, C.W. 1 telephoned accused persons with regard to 3 C.C. No.18066/2012 the same, for which accused persons told C.W. 1 that the said amount is not enough, by saying so they took further amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from her and then also they did not perform any pooja. So C.W. 1 again called accused persons over phone, told them to either perform pooja or to return the money to her. On 09/02/2011, accused persons came to the house of C.W. 1, threatened C.W. 1 and 2 with dire consequences and demanded further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gave life threat to them without repaying their earlier amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, with an intention to make an unlawful gain. Therefore, C.W.1 has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to the registered against the accused. During the course of investigation I.O visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 is on bail and he is represented through his counsel. As accused No.2 to 5 remained absent before court, hence case against them is ordered to be split up. 4 C.C. No.18066/2012
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The Charge is recorded, contents of Charge has been read over and explained to the accused No.1 in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined the C.W. 3 as P.W. 1, C.W. 8 as P.W. 2 and got marked three documents at Ex.P1 to P.3. . Though, the prosecution in order to prove its case has cited as many as 09 witnesses, except C.W. 3 and 8, none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of warrants, summons and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, the charge is framed in the year 2015 and till now C.W. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 have been secured and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Therefore, by considering the long standing pendency of the case, the prayer of the prosecution is rejected and C.W. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 5 C.C. No.18066/2012 have been discharged from deposing evidence. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
8. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, It is alleged that, C.W. 1 Smt. Sowmya Srikanth and C.W. 2 Shirkanth were residing at Yelahanka Judicial Layout along with their family at house No.1760, 7th Cross, 7th Main, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station. During their stay at the said house, C.W. 1's children used to fell sick often and often, her husband used to face hurdles in business, for which C.W. 3 being a driver of C.W. 1 suggested her to resolve the said problems by approaching one of his friend by name Venugopal Reddy i.e. accused No.3, who will solve her problem by way of worshiping some God. As such, on the willingness of C.W. 1, her driver i.e. C.W. 3 intimated accused No.3 and took him to C.W. 1 along with accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5, who came to the house of C.W. 1, where she informed about the hurdles facing by her family. All the accused persons in furtherance of common intention to cheat C.W. 1, told her that, as Architecture of her house is not proper, death may occur in her 6 C.C. No.18066/2012 house and told her to perform some Pooja.
On the guise of said Pooja, accused received Rs.5,50,000/- from C.W. 1. Per contra, did not perform any pooja. Therefore, C.W. 1 telephoned accused persons with regard to the same, for which accused persons told C.W. 1 that the said amount is not enough, by saying so they took further amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from her and then also they did not perform any pooja. So C.W. 1 again called accused persons over phone, told them to either perform pooja or to return the money to her and thereby accused No.1 along with other accused persons cheated C.W. 1 with an intention to make an unlawful gain and committed an offence punishable U/s.420 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 09/02/2011, accused persons came to the house of C.W. 1, threatened C.W. 1 and 2 with dire consequences and demanded further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gave life threat to them without repaying their earlier amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following
7 C.C. No.18066/2012
REASONS
10. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 09 witnesses and successful in examining two witnesses i.e. C.W. 3 as P.W. 1, C.W. 8 as P.W. 2. This case has been registered on the back ground of cheating said to have been committed by the accused persons to the complainant by inducing her to perform pooja in order to remove all the hurdles faced by her and her family members by receiving amount of nearly Rs.12,00,000/- in order to make unlawful gain and accused persons neither performed the pooja nor returned the money back to the complainant. When complainant demanded accused persons to repay their money, accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
11. In this connection the driver of the complainant C.W. 3 is examined as P.W. 1. He has deposed about, introducing the accused No.3 to help his owner i.e. complainant. According to the version of this driver, he intended to help his owner in order to over come their family problems. That apart, he has not deposed anything against the accused. As such, his evidence is no way useful to the case of prosecution. Similarly, P.W. 2 who is an official witness has 8 C.C. No.18066/2012 deposed about registering of FIR and forwarding the same to her higher authorities as well as to the Court. She has also deposed about the mahazar conducted by her and about recording of further statement of complainant which is not sufficient, as this complaint is mainly based on the allegations of cheating said to have done by the accused persons. An important witness in this case is the complainant. But, she has remained absent before this court. The contents of complaint reveals that, the family members of the complainant including herself are being well educated and well settled people appears to be superstitious and because of their superstitious belief they might have been trapped which is not established before this court by any means. Further, it is pertinent to note that, on 01/08/2015 this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons, warrants and proclamation. That apart, it is reported before the court that, C.W. 1 and 2 have left India about three years back by settling in America. The prosecution has given up C.W. 4 to 7 and C.W. 9 has been transferred. As such, by considering the long standing pendency of the case, C.W. 1, 2 and 9 have been dropped 9 C.C. No.18066/2012 from deposing evidence. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against the accused No.1 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative
12.Point No.3: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of July 2016).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10 C.C. No.18066/2012
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW-1: Prasad PW-2: Smt. Shilpa
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-2 Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W. 2
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.11 C.C. No.18066/2012
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the
accused and surety shall stands
cancelled.
(Mala N.D)
XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
12 C.C. No.18066/2012