Bangalore District Court
The State Through vs Sunil Kumar on 28 July, 2022
KABC030841872018
Presented on : 22-11-2018
Registered on : 22-11-2018
Decided on : 28-07-2022
Duration : 3 years, 8 months,
6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of July 2022
Criminal Case No.30816/2018
Complainant : The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
Kengeri Police Station.
( By Asst. Public Prosecutor )
--- V/s ---
Accused :1. Sunil Kumar
S/o Kalegowda,
Aged about 35 years,
Bommasandra, Kodihalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramnagar District.
2. Raveendra,
S/o.Anjanappa,
2 C.C.30816/2018
Aged about 25 years,
Seenappa Doddi,
Koppa Hobli,
Madduru Taluk,
Mandya District.
(Accused Rept. by-KMM.Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 30/10/2017
offence
Date of report of offence : 30/10/2017
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Shankaran R.
Date of commencement of : 25/2/2019
recording evidence
Date of closing of : 3/3/2020
evidence
Offences complained of : U/s..384,506, 511 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge. : Accused No.1 and 2 are found
not guilty
Date of Judgment : 28/7/2022
XXXII Addl.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Kengeri P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Secs.384, 506, 511 of IPC. 3 C.C.30816/2018
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
On 30/10/2017 at about 10-50 while the complainant was working in his office, he received a call from Mobile No. 8546845115 by stating that he knows him and he knows his family and his neighbors and disconnected the conversation by stating that he called him at 2 p.m. Again the said person called the complainant through his phone at 2-56 p.m. on the same mobile number by stating that his life is in danger and if he pays rupees 50 lakhs he will save him and the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, he demanded Rs.20 lakhs and by threatening the complainant disconnected the phone call . Thereby the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the Kengeri Police have registered a case under Crime No.56/2019 for the offences punishable U/s 384, 506, 511 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on 4 C.C.30816/2018 completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 384, 506, 511 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused No.1 and 2 were released on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 384, 506, 511 of IPC and read over to them. Accused No. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to 3, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 8, and got marked four documents as Ex.P1 to P4. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 and 2 examined U/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C and each and every circumstance found in 5 C.C.30816/2018 the evidence is read over separately to the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 denied all such incriminating circumstances as false. Accused No.1 and 2 did not choose to explain anything during their examination. Accused No.1 and 2 did not choose to adduce defence evidence and no documents are got marked on behalf of the accused.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 30.10.2017, accused No.1 called C.W.1 -Shankaran over his phone bearing No. 9243113714 from the mobile of C.W.7- Bikas Sardar bearing No.8546845115 and demanded C.W.1 to give accused Rs.50 lakhs and 6 C.C.30816/2018 alternatively threatened C.W.1 and thereby the accused persons committed the offence of "extortion"
punishable U/Sec.511 r/w Sec. 384 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 criminally intimidated to C.W.1, thereby accused persons committed an offence of "criminal intimidation" punishable U/Sec.506 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Points No.1 and 2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
For the following;
R EAS O N S
9. Points No.1 & 2 :- As these points are interlinked
with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common 7 C.C.30816/2018 discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is the allegation that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable U/s. 384, 506, 511 of the IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the PW.1/CW.1 the complainant by name Shankaran R, P.W.2 eye witness by name Vijay Francis, P.W.3 mahazar witness by name Balaji, P.W.4 mahazar witness by name Arun R.
12. PW.1 during his examination in chief he deposed that when he was in the office somebody called him over the phone and informed him that they are going to kill him and he had to pay money in order to save his life and negotiations were going on for 5-6 days. They went on negotiating for money. They demanded one crore, later Rs.50,00,000/- and later Rs.20,00,000/-. He told them that he had no money to pay and requested them not to harm him. He deposed that in 8 C.C.30816/2018 this regard he lodged complaint before the police. He also furnished the call details to the police along with the complaint. During his examination in chief he turned partially hostile and the learned Sr.APP cross-examined the above said witness, wherein during the cross-examination he admits that he furnished DVD, CD to the police and got marked the same as Ex.P3 and also he identified the seizure mahazar and marked as Ex.P4. During the cross- examination, he deposed that the incident of receiving his phone call at 10-50 a.m. is not recorded in CC TV Camera. When he received the phone call at 10-50 a.m. he mentioned in the complaint that he was in his workplace. At that point of time, he did not come to know who called him. The incident of receiving a second call by him was also not recorded on the CC TV camera. He has not mentioned in his complaint about recording or not recording the incident in the CCTV camera. He has mentioned in his complaint that he has recorded the call details. Further stated that he has not mentioned the same in the complaint and not mentioned in the complaint that he went for lunch and CW.2 accompanied 9 C.C.30816/2018 him and CW.2 knows about the call of the accused. Further deposed that he went to the police station during mid-day he cannot say the exact time and subsequently stated that he has visited the police station approximately about 8-10 times. Further deposed that except for the complaint he has not signed any other documents in the police station. After lodging his complaint he has not signed on any paper in the police station. Further deposed that he has not handed over the recorded call details to police and he has not given any CD to the police on 31/10/2017. He also admits that he received the calls from unknown persons and he came to know about the persons calling from unknown numbers if they attended the calls. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not called him at any point of time and he deposed that he himself got recorded the call details he has produced only CD to the police but not produced the computer through which data was transferred to CD. He deposed that he copied the details from his phone and written to CD and produced before the Police.
10 C.C.30816/2018
13. CW.2 the eye witness is examined as PW.2 he deposed that himself and CW.1 are working at Mind Trees Ltd., for 10 years. In the year 2017, CW.1 called him to accompany him at the Police Station to lodge the complaint since he was H.R. he went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint and CW.1 lodged the complaint relating to threatening calls. Further deposed that after lodging the complaint, 2 times somebody called the CW.1 and threatened him and CW.1 informed that somebody is intimidating to his life by forcing him to pay money of Rs.20 lakhs. He deposed that he does not know about threatening calls prior to lodging the complaint. He knew about the threatening details since CW.1 informed him. He partially turned hostile. The learned Sr.APP cross- examined him wherein he denies the suggestion that on 30/10/2017 when the CW.1 received the threatening call, he switched on the speaker in the mobile and heard the voice of the threatening call and also denied that somebody demanded Rs.50,00,000/- and later demanded Rs.20,00,000/- and he heard the voice of threatening calls. 11 C.C.30816/2018
14. CW4 the mahazar witness is examined as PW.3. During his examination in chief he deposed that police have drawn mahazar in his presence at his office and also collected CD which was produced by CW.1. The above said witnesses partially turned hostile. During the cross-examination, he admits that on 31/10/2017 police conducted spot mahazar and also admits that on 5/11/2017 CW.1 produced the CD to police in the police station. During the course of cross- examination he admits that there is a distance of 10-15 feet between his chamber and chamber of the PW.1 and also admits, that his cabin is different in the company than the cabin of PW.1. He admits that he has not visited to the police station and he does not have the knowledge with respect of the case and he does not know the contents of CD and he has not enquired about the contents of CD produced by the PW.1. He did not know the date of handing over the CD to the police.
15. CW.3 one more mahazar witness is examined as PW.4, and deposed that the police have drawn the mahazar in his 12 C.C.30816/2018 office and collected the CD. The above said witness partially turned hostile. The learned Sr.APP cross examined in detail. During the cross-examination, he admits that spot mahazar and CW.1 produced the CD to police in the police station. During the cross-examination he admits that there is a distance of 10-15 feets between his chamber and chamber of the PW.1. He Further states he would not share details as to calls received by him with him. He also admits that he did not know the boundaries mentioned in the mahazar. He admits that he has not had any knowledge with respect to the case and he did not know the contents of CD and he has not enquired about the contents of CD produced by the PW.1. he did not know the date of handing over CD to the police.
16. By perusing the record it is pertinent to note that only PW.1 to PW4 have been examined who are all interested witnesses. PW.2, 3 and 4 are the witnesses who are all working with PW.1. In the decision reported in...
AIR 1980 SC 443( Babu VS- State of UP -it is held that "where the witnesses 13 C.C.30816/2018 are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
This decision is also aptly applicable to the case on hand.
Though this Court issued NBW to CW.5 to CW.8. The concerned police witnesses have not secured the above said witnesses. In view of the same by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP the evidence of Cw 5 to 8 has been dropped.
17. As per the allegation made by the PW.1 on 30/10/2017 at about 10-50 while the complainant was working in his office, he received a call from Mobile No. 8546845115 by stating that he knows him and he knows his family and his neighbours and cut the conversation by stating that he called him at 2 p.m. Again the said person called the complainant through his phone at 2-56 p.m. on the same mobile number by stating that his life is in danger and if he pays rupees 50 lakhs he will save him and the complainant says his inability to pay the said amount, he demanded Rs.20 lack and by threatening the complainant and cut the phone. Thereby the accused persons have 14 C.C.30816/2018 committed the alleged offences. During his examination in chief, he has not stated with respect to the CD and also not identified the seizure mahazar. Only during the cross- examination by learned Sr.APP he got marked CD and identified the seizure mahazar. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P3 is marked subjected to its admissibility. whereas the prosecution has not furnished 65(B) Certificate in order to prove the CD. Since the prosecution has failed to furnish 65(B) Certificate, the Ex.P3 which is the CD cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be looked into. PW.1 during the cross-examination deposed that he has not mentioned in his complaint about recording or not recording the incident in the CC TV camera. He has mentioned that he has recorded the call details. If that is so what prevented the PW.1 to furnish the call details in order to show that there is a call from the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove the same. Further, it is also an admitted fact that he has not handed over the CC TV details to the police. In the cross-examination he admits that he has recorded the call details and he has produced only CD to the Police but not produced the call 15 C.C.30816/2018 details. In view of the same, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the complainant received the calls from mobile No. 9243113714. There are no documents to show that there is a demand and accused persons have committed the alleged offences.
18. For the reasons stated above, it is clear that a number of serious doubts arise in the mind of the court as to the evidence and circumstances of the case on hand. Under these circumstances, no doubt the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence this court held that the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards guilt of the accused only and accused as a matter of right is entitled for benefit of doubt and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Points No.1 and 2 are answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
19. Point No.3: - In view of the findings of point No.1 and 2, this court proceed to pass the following; 16 C.C.30816/2018
ORD ER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable /Secs 384, 506, 511 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 and Surety bonds shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of July, 2022).
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Shankaran R. C.W.1 25/2/2019 PW-2 Vijay Fransis C.W.2 25/2/2019 PW-3 Balaji C.W.4 25/2/2019 PW-4 Arun R. C.W.3 3/3/2020
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution: 17 C.C.30816/2018
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature Ex.P3 : CD Ex.P.4 ; Seizure mahazar
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
--Nil--
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.