Bangalore District Court
Has Dropped As Not Secured vs 3 If He Is Not Required In Any Other Case on 2 July, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 2nd Day of July 2019
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.3132/2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 3132/2018
2. The date of commission 11/07/2017
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Chandralayout P.S.
4. Name of the accused 1. Bharat N. s/o late
Narayanaswamy, aged about
25 years, r/at No.52/2, 2nd
main, 3rd Cross,
Kamakyamma Layout,
Yelahanka, Bangalore.
2.Ravi - SPLIT UP
A3. Umesha @ Raja @ Jail
Raja s/o late Hanumantappa,
aged 45 years, ra/t No.21, 3rd
Cross, Ambedkarnagara,
behind Devanahally PS, next
to Matton Ghouse shop,
2 C.C.No.3132/2018
Devanahally, Bangalore Rural
Dist. (JC)
5. The offence complained of U/s. 454, 457 and 380, 511
or proved r/w 34 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused 1 and 3 are acquitted
8. Date of such order 02072019
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by Police Inspector of Chandralayout PS against the accused 1 and 3 for an offence Punishable U/Sec. 454, 457 and 380, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 11072017 at night hours, lurking house tresspass by break open the lock of the house of CW1' soninlaw with an intention to steal and theft iron rod and thereby committed the alleged offences.3 C.C.No.3132/2018
3. Accused 1 was on bail, accused 2 split up, accused 3 in JC. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused 1 and 3 for the offence punishable U/s. 454, 457 and 380, 511 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused 1 and 3 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined 5 witness as PW1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1. Accused 1 and 3 have been questioned 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The point that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether prosecution proves that beyond all reasonable doubts that on 11072017 at night hours, at Chandralayout the accused committed lurking house tresspass by break open the lock 4 C.C.No.3132/2018 of the house of CW1's soninlaw, with an intention to steal and thereby you have committed the offences punishable U/sec.454, 457 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. On the above said date, time and place you accused 1 to 3 after committing lurking house tresspass by break open the lock with dishonest intention committed theft of iron rod and thereby you have committed an offence punishable U/sec.380 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. On the above said date, time and place the accused in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence, the accused 1 and 3 were attempts to commit an offence and thereby committed the offence u/s 511 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. What Order?5 C.C.No.3132/2018
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: In order to avoid the repetition of facts taken together for common discussion. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused 1 and 3 the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to 5. In the present case on hand, the complainant has dropped as not secured.
9. PW1 who is the seizure mahazar witness in his evidence he has deposed that the police have shown the MO1 at police station. This witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The remaining witnesses are the 6 C.C.No.3132/2018 police officials and the IO in their evidence they have deposed that the investigation part done by them. As their evidence is formal one in nature.
10. It is paramount fact to note that even in the present case on hand, even after issuance of warrant, proclamation and summons, the CW1, 3 and 5 have dropped as not secured. In the absence of the above said material witnesses i.e., complainant, eye witness and seizure mahazar witness and other independent witness the guilt of the accused cannot be proved. In the light of the above said discussions made and in the absence of material evidence the case of the prosecution falls short. On the basis of the sole evidence of police officials and the IO the guilt of the accused cannot be proved. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 and 3 in the negative.
7 C.C.No.3132/2018
11. Point No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused 1 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 454, 457 and 380, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused 1 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Issue intimation to jail authorities to release accused 3 if he is not required in any other case.
MO1 seized in this case is ordered to be preserve till the disposal of case against accused 2. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 2nd day of July 2019.) (M.Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Prabhu
8 C.C.No.3132/2018
PW2 : Kalegowda
PW3 : Mahadevaiah
PW4 : Shankar
PW5 : Ravikumar
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Mahazar Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Report Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P3 : Report Ex.P4 : Complaint Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P5 : FIR Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P6 : Complaint Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P8 : Statement of CW1
Ex.P8(a) & (b) : Signature of witnesses Ex.P9 : Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P10 : Statement of accused Ex.P10(a) : Signature of PW5
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Object:
MO1 : Iron Rod VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.9 C.C.No.3132/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused 1 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 454, 457 and 380, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused 1 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Issue intimation to jail authorities to release accused 3 if he is not required in any other case.
MO1 seized in this case is ordered to be preserve till the disposal of case against accused 2.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore