Bangalore District Court
State By Konanakunte Police Station vs Vinodkumar on 7 July, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2021
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.692/2017
COMPLAINANT:- State by Konanakunte Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Vinodkumar,
S/o. Nagaraj,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.298, Opp. Pinto Convent
School, Near Just Book,
Gubbalala,
Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru.
2. Babajan,
(Case against A.2 is split up as per
order dated 6.7.2021)
2
S.C.No.692/2017
1. Date of commission of offence : 23.1.2017
2. Date of report of offence : 23.1.2017
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : A.1 on 3.3.2017
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Deepika Mohan Kumar
5. Date of recording evidence : 1.10.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 20.1.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.397 R/w 34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/s.397 of
I.P.C. against A.1
proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. H.M.Ramakrishna
Adv. for A.1.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Konanakunte police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 397 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.33/2017. 3
S.C.No.692/2017 In the present case, accused No.1/ Vinod Kumar stand charged U/s.397 R/w.sec.34 of I.P.C.
2. There is undisputed facts in this case.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; On 28.1.2017 after noon at 2.15 p.m., in front of House No.40, 6th Main, 10th Cross, R.B.I.Layout, within the jurisdictional of Konanakunte police station when Cw.1/Smt/Deepika was on her way to work, in order to commit robbery accused No.1 and 2 came on two wheeler pulsar motor bike bearing No.KA-05-ER-1334. Accused No.2 being rider of the said pulsar motor cycle, kept engine of the said motor cycle in start position. Accused No.1 went near Cw.1/Smt.Deepika threatened her by attempting to stab, snatched 45 grams gold neck chain valued Rs.1,40,000/- (one lakh forty thousand), fled away by sitting on the motor cycle which was riding by accused No.2 thereby committed offence punishable U/s.397 R/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. 4
S.C.No.692/2017
4. Cognizance for the offence shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned Magistrate U/s. 190(b) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C.No.10165/2017 on the file of II-Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offence alleged against accused is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to this court as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.692/2017.
5. After hearing, on 14.8.2019 charge against accused No.1 and 2 framed as per Sec.228 of Cr.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried.
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution side were explained to the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements. Accused denied all incriminating circumstances, evidence found in the prosecution side evidence. Accused 5 S.C.No.692/2017 have not produced any documents, materials on their behalf. Further no defence evidence led by the accused side.
7. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused.
8. Despite issuance of NBW, presence of accused No.2 not traced out. Hence, case against No.2 is split up as per order dated 6.7.2021.
9. Now, points arising for determination are :
1 Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 28.1.2017 after noon at 2.15 p.m., in front of House No.40, 6 th Main, 10th Cross, R.B.I.Layout, accused No.1 along with split up accused No 2 have committed chain snatching of complainant Smt. Deepika thereby committed offence punishable U/s.397 R/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?6
S.C.No.692/2017 2 What Order ? Acquittal or conviction?
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- Cardinal principle of criminal trial is that prosecution has to be prove case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. As per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the offence charged against the accused persons is on the prosecution. To determine commission of chain snatching as alleged in this case against accused No.1 and 2, prosecution side examined complainant victim/Cw.1/Smt.Deepika as Pw.1. In her evidence, Pw.1 has deposed that on 23.1.2017 at 2.15 p.m., she was on her way to work just 15 meters away from house. Two persons came on two wheeler by her backside. 7
S.C.No.692/2017 After crossing, they stopped the two wheeler in a little distance. Pillion rider of the said two wheeler came at her. By taking out the knife, he tried to threatened her and dashed her, due to which she fell down. He snatched her gold neck chain, fled away by sitting on the two wheeler. Neighbours came to the spot, when she was shouted for help. They tried to get those two persons but went in vain. Inhabitant of the locality called "100" for police help. Konanakunte police came to the spot. She telephoned her husband, then went to Konanakunte police and lodged complaint. Pw.7 identified her complaint at Ex.P.8. Pw.1 deposed on facts forming parts of same transaction, occasion, cause of effect of the incident complained and hence relevant and admissible U/s.6, 7, 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
11.1) Pw.1 further deposed that after receiving complaint, police came to the spot. She herself had shown the spot to the police. Pw.7 identified Ex.P.3/spot 8 S.C.No.692/2017 panchanama and her signature on Ex.P.3. Identification of complaint, spot mahazar, her signatures on those documents are necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
11.2) After two months from the incident, in the month of March, Konanakunte police called her husband Mohan Kumar, informed about recovery of two neck chains. She and her husband went to police station and identified her neck chain among those chains shown by the police. At that time police had shown two persons in their custody and informed that her chain was recovered from them. At the time of chain snatching, those two persons were wearing helmets. She had observed their height, physical appearance by that she was succeeded to identify them properly. Pw.7 further deposed that they were same persons, who snatched her neck chain on the date of incident. She had given further statement to the police. She had taken her neck chain to her interim custody. She can identify her stolen neck chain. Pw.7 identified her neck chain shown at Ex.P.4/photograph. 9
S.C.No.692/2017 11.3) Pw.7 has deposed that she can identify those two persons who snatched her neck chain and to whom she was identified in the Konanakunte police station. Accused No.1 and 2 were produced before the court through video conference. Pw.7 identified them before the court. Identification of accused persons and her stolen chain are facts necessary to explain relevant fact and hence admissible U/s.9 of the Indian Evidence Act.
11.4) In the cross-examination advocate for accused has elicited certain admissions with respect to omissions made in the complaint Ex.P.8 particularly on the point of not mentioning possession of knife by on the accused, sustaining injuries by Pw.1. Further Pw.7 admitted in the cross- examination that at the time of incident, those two persons who snatched her chain worn helmets. She was unable to see their faces. It is the suggestion by the accused side that, she 10 S.C.No.692/2017 lost her chain and filed false complaint of chain snatching in order to trace the chain.
11.5) To determine evidentiary value of this witness, it is just to consider the nature and character of witness. Pw.7 is an educated working woman. In the entire cross-examination, nothing has been elicited or suggested by the accused side that Pw.7 had any enimity, ill-will against accused No.1 and 2. It is also not elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.7 about reasons for giving false evidence against accused No.1 and
2. It is not even suggested that accused No.1 and 2 are known to Pw.7. Hence, there is nothing in the cross- examination to say that Pw.7 had any reason to give false evidence against accused No.1 and 2. Even though certain admissions are elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.7, it is not at all sufficient to disbelieve the evidence adduced by this witness. Therefore, evidence adduced by Pw.7 is trustworthy and can safely relied upon to determine the fact in issue.
11
S.C.No.692/2017 11.6) It is not the case of the accused persons that seized gold neck chain belongs to them. There is no counter claim by the accused on seized gold neck chain under P.F.No.22/2017 by the respondent police. As there is no admissions to disbelieve the evidence adduced by Pw.7, fact of snatching of gold chain of Cw.1/Pw.7 is proved .
11.7) So far as identification of accused person is concerned, in her examination-in-chief Pw.7 has deposed that at the time of chain snatching she had seen those two persons. She can recollect their personality, particularly their height. In the police station, Pw.7 identified accused No.1 and 2 by recalling the incident and had given her statement that accused No.1 and 2 are the same persons who had committed chain snatching. Before the court, Pw.7 has identified accused No.1 and 2 produced through video conference that they are the same persons to whom she identified in the Konanakunte police station. Further Pw.7 12 S.C.No.692/2017 clearly identified that accused No.1 and 2 are the same persons, who had committed her chain snatching. Even though in the cross-examination Pw.7 admitted that she has not produced any bill or receipt to the police to show purchase of gold neck chain, the said admission itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the claim of Pw.7. Further, Pw.7 clearly identified her gold neck chain on Ex.P.4/Photograph. Ex.P.4/Photograph was taken at the time of handing over recovered gold neck chain by the Investigation Officer to Cw.1/Pw.7. In Ex.P.4/photograph, gold neck chain is clearly visible. Identification of stolen property is relevant piece of evidence U/s.9 of Indian Evidence Act. Identification of accused is relevant U/s.5, 8, 9 of Indian Evidence Act.
12. Next aspect to be proved in the case of robbery is the fact of recovery. To prove the said fact prosecution examined Cw.4/Pw.1 and Cw.5/Pw.4/Venugopal panch witnesses and Cw.6/Pw.5.Ramesh Owner of the Suresh Jewelers. It is settled position of law that to prove contents 13 S.C.No.692/2017 of documents , number of witnesses examined is immaterial. What is required under Indian Evidence Act to prove a set of fact is, quality of evidence adduced by witness. It is also settled position of law that contents of seizure panchanama can be proved with the help of evidence adduced by the scribe of the document.
13. Cw.15/Pw.10/Srinivas L. is the investigation officer in this case. In his evidence Pw.10 has deposed that on 3.3.2017 Cw.9 to Cw.12 produced accused/Vinod Kumar @ Vinni @ Spot S/o.Nagaraja and Babajan @ Babu along with two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-05-ER-1334. He seized two wheeler and knife kept inside the dikky of the said wheeler under the cover of Ex.P.10/seizure panchanama and entered the same in station P.F.No.21/2017 as per Ex.P.14, reported the same to the court. Pw.10 has identified Mo.1 before the court, two wheeler bearing No.KA-05-ER-1334 through Ex.P.15 to 17/photographs.
14
S.C.No.692/2017 13.1) Pw.10 further deposed that accused No.1/Vinod Kumar @ Vinni had given information during the course of custodial interrogation, about places where stolen gold chains were sold. Admissible portions of his voluntary statement was marked at Ex.P.12. Similarly information given by accused No.2 also marked at Ex.P.13. On 4.3.2017 accused No.1 and 2 took them to Nirmala complex situated at Nagarthpete, Bengaluru city. They had shown "Ramesh" who is the owner of "Suresh jewelers" asked to return gold chain weighing 45 grams. Said Ramesh produced chain weighing 45 grams. Under the cover of Ex.P.1, he seized the said gold neck chain, entered the same in station P.F.No.22/2017 and reported to the court. Pw.10 identified Ex.P.18/ property form. Further he called complainant /Deepika shown to seized chain to her. He recorded her further statement after identification of the chain. Seizure memo is relevant U/s.74 of Indian Evidence Act. Evidence on this aspect is relevant U/s.35 of Indian Evidence Act. Entry in 15 S.C.No.692/2017 the seizure memo presumed to be genuine as per Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act.
13.2) There are many influential factors in the society to turn witnesses hostile to the case of the prosecution when called before the court to give evidence. In the case like chain snatching, court cannot ignore such conditions prevailing in our society. No one is ready to take risk of deposing against chain snatchers who are acting in a gang. It is not a surprise development of turning hostile by Pw.1, 4, Pw.5. Fact of recovery of stolen neck chain of complainant Pw.7 is satisfactorily proved by the evidence adduced by complainant Pw.7 and Investigation Officer Pw.10.
14. Pw.2/Cw.8/Geetha is the witness for spot mahazar Ex.P.3. In her evidence Pw.2 has deposed in accordance with the contents mentioned in Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar. In the cross-examination no such admissions elicited from Pw.2 to disbelieve her examination-in-chief portion of the evidence. Preparation of seizure mahazar is deposed by 16 S.C.No.692/2017 Pw.8/Cw.14/Nagaraj the then police inspector in Konankunte police station. In his evidence Pw.8 has deposed that on 23.1.2017 he proceeded to the spot on the basis of complaint given by Smt. Deepika prepared Ex.P.3 spot mahazar on the place shown by her. No such admissions elicited in the cross- examination of Pw.8 to disbelieve his evidence. Evidence adduced by Pw.8 is corroborating with the evidence adduced by Pw.7 complainant and hence relevant U/s.6 of Indian Evidence Act.
15. Pw.3/Cw.9/ Nagaraj is the then police head constable in Konanakunte police station. In his evidence Pw.3/Cw.9 has deposed that on 3/3/2017 morning at 8.30 a.m., along with Sagara, Govindaiah and Kempaiah, he was deputed to search and produce accused persons in this case. Evening at 4.30 p.m. one of the informer took them near Bubbalala, Kanakapura Road. Said informer had shown two persons standing with two wheeler near bus stand. They surrounded them, enquired their name and address. Those 17 S.C.No.692/2017 two persons disclosed their names as Vinodkumar @ Vinay and Babajan @ Babu. After confirming that those two persons are involved in this case, they had taken them along with two wheeler into possession, produced before P.C.Srinivas. Pw.3 identified accused No.1 before the court produced through video conference and accused No.2 present before the court. In the cross-examination no such admissions are elicited to disbelieve the evidence adduced by Pw.3. Arrest and identification of accused persons are relevant facts U/s.8, 9, of Indian Evidence Act.
16. Evidence adduced by complainant Pw.7 is corroborating with the evidence adduced by Investigation Officer/Pw.10. Arrest of the accused is proved with the evidence of Pw.3. Recovery of stolen gold neck chain of Cw.1 is proved with the help of evidence of Investigation Officer/ Pw.10. Information given by accused No.1 and 2 in the police custody which lead to recovery of stolen gold neck chain of Cw.1 is proved by the evidence of Investigation Officer Pw.10 and the same is corroborated with the evidence of Pw.7/ 18 S.C.No.692/2017 complainant. In the cases like theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity once prosecution proved the fact of commission of theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity by proving the fact of recovery of stolen articles on the basis of information given by accused persons in the police custody, then burden shifts on the accused persons to give proper account on it as per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the accused No.1 and 2 that for what reason complainant has deposed against them, alleging commission of offence of chain snatching. No explanation is forth coming from the accused side about evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer that for what reason he deposed against them about recovery of stolen gold neck chain of Cw.1 on the basis of information given by them. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused side about their arrest in this case. No explanation by accused persons on incriminating circumstances in the prosecution side evidence is relevant U/s.14 of Indian Evidence Act. Further dishonest 19 S.C.No.692/2017 intention of accused persons as per Section 24 of I.P.C. is also established.
17. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 28.1.2017 after noon at 2.15 p.m., in front of House No.40, 6 th Main, 10th Cross, R.B.I.Layout, accused No.1 along with split up accused No 2 have committed chain snatching of complainant Smt. Deepika thereby committed offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. . Hence point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
18. POINT NO.2 In view of the above findings on point No.1, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of I.P.C.
20
S.C.No.692/2017 To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 7th day of July 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
3.00 P.M., FURTHER ORDER ON IMPOSING SENTENCE The prosecution and the defence were heard on the question of sentence. Prosecution have prayed for maximum punishment. Accused side has prayed for leniency. Accused No.1 submitted that he is in judicial custody since last 2 years. Mother, sister are solely depending upon his earning. Therefore, accused No.1 has prayed to show leniency.
No doubt the accused No.1 is young aged person. There is no previous conviction is alleged against him. Accused No.1 pleaded to show leniency in imposing sentence on the 21 S.C.No.692/2017 ground that there is nobody to look-after his aged mother and sister.
This court does not consider this case to be a proper case to exercise its discretion to grant the benefit of probation to the accused U/s.360 of Cr.P.C. or Section 3, 4, and 6 of Probation of Offenders Act because offence like chain snatching is likely to harm the law and order situation in the society and shocks the general conscience of the society. Any lenient treatment towards the accused will lead to loss of confidence of the public in the judicial system. At the same young age of the accused cannot be ignored while imposing quantum of sentence. Early release of the accused No.1 would provide an opportunity to lead his future life. Ceiling to impose minimum sentence for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. is 7 years. Keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances, this court passes the following sentence.
22
S.C.No.692/2017 Accused No.1 is convicted for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In lieu of fine, accused No.1 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Imprisonment in lieu of fine shall be undergone by the accused after undergoing the substantive period of sentence as per Sec.30(2) of Cr.P.C.
Statement U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. be prepared to set-off the imprisonment undergone during investigation and trial. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and sentenced to pay 23 S.C.No.692/2017 fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. six months for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. Order of interim custody U/s,451, 457 of Cr.P.C., granting Gold Neck chain to Pw.2 stands confirmed.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 forthwith, free of cost, by sending Chief Superintendent of Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Central Prison, Bengaluru.
Bail bond and his surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
This entire file and materials object shall be preserved till conclusion of trial against split up accused.
24
S.C.No.692/2017 Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 7th day of July 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Chowdappa
Pw.2 Geetha
Pw.3 Nagaraja
Pw.4 Venugopala
Pw.5 Ramesh
Pw.6 D.Chowdappa
Pw.7 Deepika
Pw.8 Nagaraja
Pw.9 Ganesh
Pw.10 Srinivas L.
25
S.C.No.692/2017
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.1(d) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.2 Portion of statement of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.4 Photo
Ex.P.5 Report
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.6 Statement of Pw.4
Ex.P.7 Statement of Pw.5
Ex.P.8 Complaint
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.9 F.I.R.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.10 Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.11 Portion of statement of Pw.9
Ex.P.12 Portion of statement of accused No.1
Ex.P.13 Portion of statement of accused No.2
26
S.C.No.692/2017
Ex.P.14 Property Form No.21/2017
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.15 to 17 Three photos
Ex.P.16(a) Signature
Ex.P.17(a) Signature
Ex.P.18 Property Form No.22/2017
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.19 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.19(a) Signature
For Defence side:-
-Nil-
IV List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 knife
Mo.1(a) Signature on the chit
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 27 S.C.No.692/2017 07.07.2021 Accused No.1 produced from J.C. through V.C. Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of I.P.C.
To hear regarding sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
28
S.C.No.692/2017 3.00 P.M., FURTHER ORDER ON IMPOSING SENTENCE The prosecution and the defence were heard on the question of sentence. Prosecution have prayed for maximum punishment. Accused side has prayed for leniency. Accused No.1 submitted that he is in judicial custody since last 2 years. Mother, sister are solely depending upon his earning. Therefore, accused No.1 has prayed to show leniency.
No doubt the accused No.1 is young aged person. There is no previous conviction is alleged against him. Accused No.1 pleaded to show leniency in imposing sentence on the ground that there is nobody to look-after his aged mother and sister.
This court does not consider this case to be a proper case to exercise its discretion to grant the benefit of probation to the accused U/s.360 of Cr.P.C. or Section 3, 4, and 6 of Probation of Offenders Act because offence like 29 S.C.No.692/2017 chain snatching is likely to harm the law and order situation in the society and shocks the general conscience of the society. Any lenient treatment towards the accused will lead to loss of confidence of the public in the judicial system. At the same young age of the accused cannot be ignored while imposing quantum of sentence. Early release of the accused No.1 would provide an opportunity to lead his future life. Ceiling to impose minimum sentence for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. is 7 years. Keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances, this court passes the following sentence.
Accused No.1 is convicted for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In lieu of fine, accused No.1 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Imprisonment in lieu of fine shall be undergone by the accused after undergoing the substantive period of sentence as per Sec.30(2) of Cr.P.C.
30
S.C.No.692/2017 Statement U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. be prepared to set-off the imprisonment undergone during investigation and trial. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. six months for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.
Order of interim custody U/s,451, 457 of Cr.P.C., granting Gold Neck chain to Pw.2 stands confirmed.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 forthwith, free 31 S.C.No.692/2017 of cost, by sending Chief Superintendent of Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Central Prison, Bengaluru.
Bail bond and his surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
This entire file and materials object shall be preserved till conclusion of trial against split up accused.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
To submit statement U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. to set- off period of imprisonment already undergone, during investigation, trial.
32
S.C.No.692/2017 Send free certified copy of this judgment to the Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru to serve to the accused No.1.
Office is directed to issue direction to S.H.O. Konanakunte police to file split up charge sheet against accused No.2.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.