Bangalore District Court
State By Bommanahalli vs Munikrishna @ Narasimha S/O on 30 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 30th day of October 2018
PRESENT:
Sri S.Nataraj, B.A.L, L L.B.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
C.C. No.4683/2018
Complainant : State by Bommanahalli
Police, Bengaluru City
Versus
Accused : Munikrishna @ Narasimha s/o
Obalappa @ Gopalappa,
Aged about 35 yrs,
R/at Mariyamman Koyil Street,
Bathalapalli, Hosur Town,
Krishnagiri District,
Tamilnadu State.
Date of offence : 14-06-2017
Offences : U/S 454, 380 IPC
complained of
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded
not guilty
2 CC No.4683/2018
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 30-10-2018
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Sub-Inspector of Bommanahalli P.S.,
Bengaluru City has filed charge sheet against accused for
the offences punishable U/S 454, 380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that-
In between 05-45 a.m. and 08.20 a.m. on 14-06-
2017, the accused with an intention to commit theft
committed lurking house-trespass into the room of CW1
Ram Pratap situated at No.314, 2nd Floor, Building
No.6768, 17th A Cross, Near Reddy Jana Sangha School,
Rupena Agrahara, Bengaluru and committed theft of-
Lenovo Think Pad Laptop, Purse containing
Credit Cards, ATM Cards, Aadhaar Card,
Voter ID Card, Company ID, Pan Card
belonging to CW1,
Dell Laptop, Mi-4 Mobile Phone, Purse
containing ATM Cards belonging to CW2
Aman Sahu,
3 CC No.4683/2018
Lenovo Laptop, Redmi Mobile Phone, Purse
containing ATM Cards, Tokens belonging to
CW3 Arjun Singh Rathore, and
HP Laptop belonging to CW4 Praphul Malviya,
totally worth about Rs.1,50,000/- kept in the house of
CW1. Thereby the accused committed the aforesaid
offences.
3. The accused is under body warrant. After
furnishing charge-sheet copies, Charge against accused for
the alleged offences was framed, read over and explained
in the language known to him, wherein he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case
examined in all four witnesses as PW1 to 4 and produced
documents as per Ex.P1 to 12. Thereafter, the statement of
accused, as required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein he denied the incriminating evidence and opted
not to adduce any defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are-
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
4 CC No.4683/2018
accused committed the offences
punishable under Section 454 and 380
of IPC?
2) What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under for the
following reasons.
Point No-1 : In the Negative
Point No-2 : As per final order
REASONS
Point No-1:
8. It is the allegation of prosecution that on the
alleged date and time, the accused committed lurking
house trespass into the house of CW1 and committed theft
of Laptops, Mobile phones etc., totally worth about
Rs.1,50,000/- belonging to CW1 to 4.
9. The prosecution in order to prove its case
examined in all four witnesses as PW1 to 4. PW1 Ram
Pratap is the complainant. He deposed that he along with
his room mates i.e. CW2 to 4 are residing at Room
No.314, Kushal Bhodi Residency. On 14-06-2017, at
about 9-00 a.m. he came to know about the theft of Mobile
Phones and Laptops etc., kept in his house belonging to
himself and CW2 to 4. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by
5 CC No.4683/2018
PW1 and Ex.P2 to 4 are the complaints lodged by CW2 to
4 regarding the alleged theft. PW1 further deposed that the
police conducted Ex.P5 mahazar at the spot. After 2-3
months, the Police called himself and CW2 to 4 to police
station and showed 2 laptops, 2 mobiles belonging to CW2
to 4, wherein they identified the same and got released as
per Ex.P6 to 8 photographs to their interim custody.
10. It is to be noted here that, PW1 has categorically
identified accused as he has seen him in the video footage
installed in his house. But PW1 has stated that the police
has not showed accused to him, he doesn't know as to
from whom the stolen items are recovered. Though the
Sr.APP treated this witness partly hostile and cross-
examined, nothing substantial has been brought out. PW1
denied that the accused was shown to him in the police
station.
11. PW2 Ramalingegowda is the HC, who has
spoken about apprehension of accused under suspicion on
26-11-2017 at Hongasandra Road, who was in possession
of two mobile phones, one pair jumki and his production
before the SHO along with properties through the report at
Ex.P9. PW3 Renuka.A.V. is the PSI of Bommanahalli P.S.
She has spoken about arrest of accused produced before
6 CC No.4683/2018
her, recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P11, seized
the mobile phones and one pair gold jumki possessed by
him under Ex.P10, took the accused for police custody and
seized two Laptops under Ex.P12 mahazar in the shop of
Rokia Khan Mobile Sales and Services Centre at Hosur,
secured the presence of victims for identification of
laptops, mobile phone at Ex.P6 to 8 photographs etc., and
filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.
12. PW1 to 3 are subjected to cross-examination by
the learned defence counsel. First of all, it is to be noted
here that the complainant PW1 denied that the accused
was shown to him by police. Further, the evidence of other
victims such as CW2 to 4 is not made available to court
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
13. However, the main witnesses to connect accused
for the alleged offences would be CW7 Kumar, CW8
Srinivas, CW9 Irshad Khan, CW10 Shashikumar and
CW11 Selvam - the panchas, receiver in respect of
recovery of properties through Ex.P10, 12 mahazars. CW7
Kumar who is examined before the court as PW4 deposed
that the Bommanahalli Police called him to police station,
showed the accused and seized one pair jumki, two phones
under Ex.P10 mahazar. During cross-examination, PW4
7 CC No.4683/2018
deposed that he does not know the companies of mobile,
the mobiles were kept on table and as the police told to
sign, he had done so.
14. The evidence of PW4 is not corroborated by
leading the evidence of another panch witness to Ex.P10
seizure mahazar such as CW8. Further the evidence of
CW9 to 11 - receiver and panchas to Ex.P12 seizure
mahazar is not made available to court inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the accused is involved in the theft committed in the house
of PW1, especially when the whole case of prosecution is
depending on circumstantial evidence of the recovery of
property. In this view of fact also, the whole case of
prosecution has been rendered weak.
15. Further, regarding apprehension of accused by
PW2 and others at Hongasandra Road, who was found to
be in possession of mobile phones and one pair jumki, no
mahazar appears to have been drawn and the persons of
that locality are not been examined. As such the
apprehension of accused along with mobile phones and
one pair jumki would also create suspicion.
16. It is pertinent to note here that, though PW1 in
his evidence deposed about seeing of accused in video
8 CC No.4683/2018
footage installed in the house, no such footages are
produced before the court. Under the circumstances, there
is no cogent and material circumstances to connect
accused for the alleged theft occurred in the house of PW1.
Further the finger prints at the spot would have played
important role, but it appears that the IO has not taken any
steps in this regard. Upon considering the materials
available on record, this court is of the view that the
prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. In the result, I answer Point No-1 in the
Negative.
Point No-2:
17. In view of my finding to Point No-1 as above, I
proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC.
The body warrant issued against accused is recalled and the jail authorities are directed to release him 9 CC No.4683/2018 forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The interim custody of properties at Ex.P6 to 8 photographs already granted in favour of CW2 to 4 is made absolute and the same shall be given effect after the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer. The computerized print out taken by Steno is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on this day i.e., 30-10-2018) (S.Nataraj), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : Ram Pratap
PW2 : Ramalingegowda
PW3 : Renuka.A.V.
PW4 : Kumar
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 to 4 : Complaints Ex.P5 : Spot Mahazar 10 CC No.4683/2018 Ex.P6 to 8 : Photographs Ex.P9 : Report of PW2 (True Copy) Ex.P10 : Seizure Mahazar (True Copy) Ex.P11 : Voluntary Statement of Accused (True Copy) Ex.P12 : Seizure Mahazar (True Copy) List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.11 CC No.4683/2018
30-10-2018 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC.
The body warrant issued against accused is recalled and the jail authorities are directed to release him forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The interim custody of properties at Ex.P6 to 8 photographs already granted in favour of CW2 to 4 is made absolute and the same shall be given effect after the completion of appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.