Bangalore District Court
Mohammed Khudarathulla vs Mohammed Shareef Alias Ansar on 9 September, 2024
KABC030402502017
Presented on : 13-06-2017
Registered on : 13-06-2017
Decided on : 09-09-2024
Duration : 7 years, 2 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 09th Day of September, 2024
C. C. No.16053/2017
State by J.C. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Mohammed Shariff @ Ansar,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Sri. Mohammed Noorulla Khan,
R/at No.274, Kempapura,
Dasarahalli, Behind IBM,
Amruthahalli Police Station Limits,
Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Brijesh Rajput Advocate)
KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
1. Date of commission of In between 19-03-2017
offence to 01-04-2017
2. Name of Complainant Sri Mohammed
Khudaratulla
3. Offences complained of Under Section 454, 380
IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused is not found
guilty
6. Date of order 09-09-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J.C.Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: In between 19-03-2017 to 01-04-2017 during the day hours, the accused has trespassed into the house of CW1 Sri Mohammed Khudaratulla situated at No.16/A, 1st Cross, Kempaiah Block, within the limits of J.C.Nagara Police Station, by breaking open the door lock of 2 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 house with an intention to commit theft committed house lurking and committed theft of gold ornaments worth about ₹2,00,000/- kept in the almirah of house.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1/PW1, CW10/PW5, ASI of J.C. Nagara Police Station Sri Srinivasamurthy registered a Crime No.58/2017 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 380, 454, 457 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P 3 and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers and handed over the case papers to CW11.
4. Investigation: During the course of investigation, on the receipt of case papers from PW5, CW11/PW6 conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3, recorded the statements and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 454, 380 of IPC.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 22-07-2020.
3 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/20177. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 11 witnesses however examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and closed their side. The examination of CW3, CW6 and CW8 were given up by the order dated 20-02- 2023 and 11-09-2023 on account of examination of CW2 and CW6 and CW8 respectively. The examination of CW5 was given up by the order dated 05-12-2023 as prosecution failed to secure his presence for evidence.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
4 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/201711. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in between 19-03-
2017 to 01-04-2017 during the day hours, the accused has trespassed into the house of CW1 Sri Mohammed Khudaratulla situated at st No.16/A, 1 Cross, Kempaiah Block, within the jurisdiction of J.C.Nagara Police Station, by breaking open the door lock of house with an intention to commit theft committed house lurking thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time the accused 5 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 lurking house-trespassed into the house of CW1 and committed theft of gold ornaments worth about ₹2,00,000/- kept in the almirah of house thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC?
3. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, which are as follows 6 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 i. CW1 Sri Mohammed Khudaratulla being informant examined as PW1 deposed in his evidence that on 13-03-2017 he went to his sister's house at Bellavi and returned on 01-4-2017 at 12.30 p.m. and noticed that someone committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 84 grams kept in the almirah by breaking the door lock of his house and thereafter he lodged the complaint before J.C.Nagara PS as per Ex.P1, police conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in presence of CW2 and CW3. On 05-04-2017, the police called him to station and shown the accused. On 16-05-2017 they called him and shown jewelry which he got released in his favour. He identified the photo as per Ex.P3.
ii. CW2/PW2 Sri Nisar Ahmed, panch witness deposed in his evidence that five years ago the police have conducted the spot mahazar at CW1's house regarding theft and obtained his signature. He identified the spot mahazar as Ex.P2 and signature thereon as Ex.P2(a).
iii. CW4/PW3, Sri Abrahar, seizure mahazar witness identified his signature on Ex.P3 seizure mahazar as Ex.P3(a) and deposed that six years ago he put his signature on the said document at Hotel Shobha Residency. The said seizure mahazar was in respect of crime No.63/2027 and the police seized the item No.1 to 19 properties shown from the room where accused was staying.
7 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017iv. CW7 Sri Mehaboob Saab, the then PC/HC of J.C.Nagar PS examined as PW4 deposed that he along with CW6 and CW8 apprehended the accused and produced him before SHO with report.
v. CW10/PW5 Sri Srinivas Murthy, the then ASI of J.C.Nagara PS, deposed that the after receipt of complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1, registered the FIR as per Ex.P2 and handed over the case papers to CW11.
vi. CW11 Sri Girish Nayak, the then PI of J.C.Nagara Police Station examined as PW6 deposed that on receipt of case papers from PW5, he conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 and seized the properties through Ex.P2 seizure mahazar and recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences. He identified report as Ex.P5 and photo as Ex.P3.
15. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of the present case. The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 454 of Indian Penal Code are:-
1. The accused had committed lurking house trespass or house breaking.
2. In order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment.8 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
3. There should be an intention to commit theft.
13. The offence of House Breaking has been defined under Section 445 of IPC.
A person is said to have committed house breaking if he affects his entrance into the house or any part thereof or affect his exist in any of the six ways described in the said section. The six ways given in the said Section are as follows:-
1. If he enters or quits through a passage by himself or by any abettor to commit house trespass
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person other than himself or the abettor for human entrance; or through any passage to which he had obtained by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor has opened which passage is not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock to commit house trespass.9 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
5. If he effects his entrance by using criminal force or committing assault or any by threating a person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure and he had unfastened the same.
16. Section 380 of IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house. The offence theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:-
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable property.
3. The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.
4. There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
5. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, 10 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused.
Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
18. It is the case of prosecution that the CW1/PW1 lodged a complaint on 01/04/2017 which is extracted adverbatim as under
ಹೀಗಿರುವಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ ೧೯/೦೩/೨೦೧೭ ರಂದು ಮಧ್ಯನ ಸುಮಾರು ೧೨.೪೫ ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಬಾಗಲಿಗೆ ಬೀಗ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸಮೇತ ಸ್ವಂತ ಊರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆವು. ನಂತರ ಊರಿನಿಂದ ಈ ದಿನ ದಿನಾಂಕ ೦೧.೦೪. ೨೦೧೭ ರಂದು ಮಧ್ಯನ ಸುಮಾರು ೧೨-೩೦ ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ವಾಪಾಸ್ಸ್ ಬಂದು ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮುಂಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಬಾಗಿಲಿನ ಬೀಗ ಮುರಿದಿದ್ದು, ಮನೆಯ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಹೋಗಿ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಮನೆಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಇದ್ದ ಬ್ಯುರೋವಿನ ಬಾಗಿಲವು ತೆರದಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದು ಗಾಬಾರಿಯಾಗಿ ಬ್ಯುರೋವಿನ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಒಳಗೆ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಸುಮಾರು ೮೪ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಒಡೆವೆಳಾದ ೧). ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ನೆಕ್ಲೆಸ್ ೨. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಲಚ್ಛಾ ೩) ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಡಿಸೈನ್ ಚೈನ್ ೪. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬಳೆಗಳು ೫. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಡಾಲರ್ಸ್ 11 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 ಉಳ್ಳ ಚೈನ್ ೬) ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಓಲೆ ೭. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಿಯ ಹಾಂಗಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ೮. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬೆರಳುಉಂಗರ ೯) ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಿಯ ಹಾಂಗಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ೮) ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬೆರಲುಂಗರ ೯) ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಿಯ ಹ್ಯಾಂಗಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ಇವುಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು. ಇವುಗಳ ಅಂದಾಜು ಬೆಲೆ ಸುಮಾರು ೨,೦೦,೦೦೦/- ರೂಗಳಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾವು ಊರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೋ ಕಳ್ಳರು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಬೀಗ ಮುರುದು ಮನೆಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ಮಾಡಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ವಡೆವೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Based upon this complaint, a crime came to be registered in crime No.18/2017 for the offences punishable under section 454, 457, 380 of IPC against unknown person as per Ex.P4 and thereafter the spot mahazar was drawn at No.16/A, I Cross, Kempaiah Block, within the limits of JC Nagara Police Station, Bangalore city from 16.15 pm till 17.30 pm in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Nisar Ahamed S/o. Mubark Khan and CW3 namely Sri Imadad S/o. Shaik Ahamad as per Ex.P2.
19. Thereafter, PI of JC Nagara Police station deputed R.Nagaraj HC 674, HC 8903 and PC 7425 in crime No.63/2017 for the offences punishable under section 454, 457, 380 of IPC for tracing the accused 12 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 and provided some guidance to trace the accused based upon the compliant of One Sri Sardar Pasha. Based upon which, they were patrolling at Marappa Garden, Chinnappa Garden, Krishnamma Garden and around 5.50 am, one person (accused) was coming from opposite direction by dragging his leg and on suspect of committing the theft, he was taken to the Police Station and produced before the SHO of JC Nagara Police station at 6.15 am however what time, IO/PW4 had deputed them for tracing the accused was not explained/mentioned in his report. It ought to be seen that his voluntary statement was recorded on 05/04/2017 and obtained his thumb impression. Based upon his voluntary statement, CW11/PW6/IO proceeded to the Shubha Residency Room No.105, I cross, Cotton Pet, Bangalore as per Ex.P1 in the presence of CW4 Abrahar S/o. Apaabatt and Sri Mohammed Husain between 1.30 pm till 2.30 pm and seized the following properties
೧. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ನೆಕ್ಲೆಸ್ ತೂ ೧೮. ೮೩೦ ml grm
೨. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಲಚ್ಚಾ ತೂ ೧೬. ೬೫೦ grm
೩. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಡಿಸೈನ್ ಚೈನ್ ತೂ ೧೩. ೬೨೦ grm
೪. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬಳೆಗಳು ತೂ ೧೨. ೩೪೦ grm
೫. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಡಾಲರ್ಸ್ವುಳ್ಳ ಚೈನ್ ತೂ ೭. ೫೬೦ grm
೬. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನಚಿನ್ನದ ವಾಲೆ ೪೧೩. ೬೨೦ grm
೭. ಒಂದು ಜೊತೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಯಹ್ಯಾಂಗಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ೪-೨೭೦ grm
೮. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬೆರಳು ಉಂಗರ ತೂ ೧. ೭೧೦ grm
೯. ಒಂದು ಛೋಟೆ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಿಹ್ಯಾಂಗಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ೩.೯೨೦ grm
೧೦. ಎರಡು ಚಿನ್ನದ ನೆಕ್ಲೆಸ್ ೩೭. ೨೦ grm
೧೧. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ನೆಟ್ಟಿಚೂಡಿ ೧೪. ೯೦೦ grm 13 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
೧೨. ಎರಡು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಲೇಪಿಸ್ ಬೆರಳುಉಂಗರ ೩.೬೦೦ grms
೧೩. ಒಂದು ಒಂಪಿ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಿವಿಯ ತಾಪ್ಸ್ ೩. ೧೦೦ grams
೧೪. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಮೂಕಿತಿ ೦-೫೦೦ ml grm
೧೫. ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಕಾಯಿನ್ ೮-೩೦೦ grm
೧೬. ಒಂದು ಬೆಳ್ಳಿ ಮೂಕಿತಿ ೦-೫೦೦ ml grm
೧೭. ನಗದು ಹಣ ೧೮೦೦೦ (೨೦೦೦ x ೧, ೫೦೦x ೨೫, ೧೦೦ x ೨೬, ೫೦ x ೧೬, ೨೦x ೩, ೧೦ x ೪ ಒಟ್ಟು ೧೮,೦೦೦ ರೂಪಯಿಗಳು)
೧೮. ಒಂದು ಲೆನೋವಾ ಕಂಪನಿ ಹೆಸರಿನ ಲ್ಯಾಪ್ಟಾಪ್
೧೯. ನಗದು ಹಣ ಹತ್ತು ಸಾವಿರ (೧೦,೦೦೦) ೨೦೦೦ x ೫ ರೂಪಾಯಿಗಳು However, this court could not understand how the PW6 could have identified the jewels, cash and lenova were involved with Crime No. 58/2017 under section 454, 457, 380 IPC registered in JC Nagara Police Station, Crime No. 63/2017 under section 454, 457, 380 IPC registered in JC Nagara Police Station, Crime No. 18/2017 under section 380 IPC registered in JC Nagara Police Station and Crime No. 55/2017 under section 454, 380 IPC registered in Hebbal Police Station as the victims/informants were not available at the time of seizure for identification of their properties which raises the doubt about the seizure.
20. Added to which, the PW6/IO has not seized any bill from Shobha Residency, Cottonpet, Bangalore that the accused was staying in the room 14 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 No.105 in the said Shobha Residency on 05/04/2017.
21. There is no eye witness who had seen the accused has opened the door of the house PW1 for committing the alleged theft. There are no photographs of the spot namely house of the PW1/CW1 and Shobha Residency taken by the CW11/PW6/IO.
22. In this case, most important fact is that, whether, prosecution proved that the stolen articles were recovered from the custody of the accused soon after theft as contemplated under illustration attached to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. It appears from the evidence of PW6/IO that ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಬೆರಳು ಮುದ್ರೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಕಾರಣ ಬೆರಳು ಮುದ್ರೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Such being the case, how the PW6 could connect the accused to the seizure without production of bill for his stay of accused in the Shobha Residency.
23. Now the question before the court is whether the accused was found in possession of stolen aforesaid jewels as per Ex.P3. It appears from the evidence of PW6 /IO that 15 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 ನನ್ನ ತನಿಖಾ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ ೧ ರವರಿಂದ ಮಾಲುಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂದಬಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಬಿಲ್ಲನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it emerges from the cross examination of PW6 that IO has not seized the original bill of jewels belongs to the PW1, then how he could have come to a conclusion that the jewels belongs to the PW1 without any receipts.
24. It appears from the evidence of PW6 and PW1 that ಸ್ಥಳ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಕ್ಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಂಚಾರಗಿ ಕರೆದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕಳ್ಳತನವಾದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ಮನೆಯವರನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಿಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿದ್ದು ಅವರು ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
PW1 deposed that
ನಾನು ಸುಮಾರು ೧೦ ದಿನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮುಂದೆ
ಅಂಗಡಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಹೋಟೆಲ್ಗಳು ಇವೆ.
ಅವರು ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯ. ನಮ್ಮ ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕದ ಮನೆಯವರು ಯಾರು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಬಾಗಲು ಒಡೆದಿರುವ ವಿಷಯ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ.
16 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the theft however the PW6 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place in the house of PW1 between 19/03/2017 till 01/04/2017 as the boundaries of house of PW1 is bounded on the East by the shop of Rayathiv dress Materials, West by Mubark Mohalla Masid, North by No. 5 belongs to HBS Mubark store and South by house No. 9 belongs to Nayaz Ahamed . It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
25. It ought to be seen that they seized the stolen Item No.1 to 19 as per Ex.P3 but neither of the manager or employee of Shobha Residency were made as a witness to corroborate that the alleged seizure is from Shobha Residency when no bill of stay of accused was produced as on 05/04/2017.
26. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not joined any local inhabitants at the time of spot mahazar or seizure mahazar whilst completing the spot and seizure formalities despite availability of persons. Hence, the 17 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 very recovery of the jewels and other articles from the accused is doubtful.
27. In view of the above discussion, the court of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed house breaking between 19.03.2017 till 01/04/2017 at No.16/A, 1st Cross, Kempaiah Block, within the jurisdiction of J.C.Nagara Police Station and committed theft of gold and jewellery articles and cash from the temple. Prosecution has further failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of aforesaid stolen articles and hence, the charges against the accused has not been proved thereby this court answer the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
28. Point No.3:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.454, 380 of IPC.18 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9th day of September, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Mohammed Khudaratulla PW2 : Sri Nisar Ahmed PW3 : Sri Abrahar PW4 : Sri Mehaboob Saab PW5 : Sri Srinivas Murthy PW6 : Sri Girish Nayak Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar 19 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017 Ex.P3 : Photo/ Seizure Memo Ex.P4 : F.I.R. Ex.P5 : Report (copy)
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.20 KABC030402502017 CC 6053/2017
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.454, 380 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
21