Bangalore District Court
State By City Market Police Station vs In The Language To Him. He Denied The ... on 23 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 28th day of March 2016
Present : Shri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. : 6092/2015
2.Date of Offence : 1-10-2014
3.Complainant : State by City Market Police Station
4.Accused : Selva S/o Murugan,
aged 28 years,
Haragundanahalli,
Thirukoyilur Taluk,
Vellipuram District,
Tamilnadu.
5. Offence complained : Under Section 384 of IPC.
of
6.Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7.Final Order : Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order : 28-3-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, City Market Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.6092/2015
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
1-10-2014 at 4 p.m. on S.R.Road footpath, City Market, within
the limits of City Market Police Station, the accused has
extorted Rs.50/- each from C.Ws.1 to 5 the footpath vendors
and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this
court took cognizance of the offence and furnished the copies
of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charges, this Court has framed the charge for the offence
punishable under Section 384 of IPC and read over to the
accused in the language to him. He denied the charge and
claimed to try.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused has
examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked four
documents at Exs.P1 to P4. Since C.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 7 and 10 to
12 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer of
Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Since, the prosecution has not adduced any
incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on both counsels and
perused the evidence on record.
3 C.C.No.6092/2015
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove the guilt
against accused has examined four witnesses. P.W.1 Rajendra
and P.W.2 Anwar are the victims to the alleged act of the
accused. P.W.3 Michel and P.W.4 Balu are the spot mahazar
witnesses. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
prosecution has not examined other witnesses on record.
8. P.Ws.1 and 2 the victims to the alleged incident and
P.Ws.3 and 4 the spot mahazar witnesses have totally turned
hostile. The learned Sr.APP., treated these four witnesses as
hostile witnesses and further cross-examined them but
nothing worth was elicited from them.
9. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not secured the presence of
C.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 7, 10 to 12. The order sheet indicating that on
16-4-2015 charge was framed. Thereafter, summons to all the
witnesses issued on six occasions, but the concerned police
have failed to secure the presence of C.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 7, 10
to 12. The shara made by the concerned police dated
22-1-2015 indicating that the process police for want of
sufficient time has not served summons to C.W.1. C.Ws.2, 3,
6 and 7 have left the given address. Since C.Ws.10 and 12 are
on special duty and C.W.11 was transferred to some other
station, the process police prayed time to serve summons to
them. Further, the shara dated 8-7-2015 indicating that the
4 C.C.No.6092/2015
process police served summons to C.W.1 through telephone.
C.Ws.2, 6 and 7 have left the given address. He served
summons to C.Ws.3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Though as per
the above referred shara, almost all the witnesses had
knowledge of summons of this case, they have not appeared
before the Court. In my opinion, the concerned police have
ignored their responsibility. Even though the prosecution to
prove guilt against the accused has examined four witnesses,
the said witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Under the above facts and circumstances of the
case, this court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is
entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offence under section 384 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offence.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.89/2014 i.e., cash of Rs.4,450/- is confiscated to Government after appeal period is over.
5 C.C.No.6092/2015Office to remit the said cash to the Government under proper head.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of March 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Rajendra, P.W.2, Anwar, P.W.3, Michel P.W.4, Balu;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Statement of P.W.1, Ex.P2, Statement of P.W.2, Ex.P3, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P3(b), Signature of P.W.4, Ex.P4, Statement of P.W.3; LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.6 C.C.No.6092/2015 7 C.C.No.6092/2015
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offence under section 384 of IPC.
Hence, acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offence.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
The property seized under P.F.No.89/2014 i.e., cash of Rs.4,450/- is confiscated to Government after appeal period is over.
Office to remit the said cash to the Government under proper head.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.