Bangalore District Court
State By Jjr Nagar P.S vs Pleaded Not Guilty And Claimed To Be ... on 20 February, 2021
1
C.C.No.1268/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2021.
Present:
Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.
C.C. No.1268/2019
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
1. Complainant: State by JJR Nagar P.S.
2. Accused: SYED SALMAN @ 28 SALMAN,
S/o Syed Aleem, 24 years,
R/at No.1/2, 6th cross, 1st main,
Haleguddadahalli,
Bangalore 560 026.
3.Date of offence: 30092018
4. Offences complained of: U/s. 435 of IPC., & S.2(A) of PDLP Act.
5. Plea: Accused Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final Order: Accused is Acquitted.
7. Date of Order: 20022021.
*****
The SubInspector of Police, Jagajeevanaram nagar Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/s. 435 IPC., & Sec. 2(A) of PDLP Act.
2
C.C.No.1268/2019
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as fallows:
That on 30092018 at early hours of 3.30 a.m., the accused
came at house No.24, 5th cross, West Padarayanapura and loudly
screaming, hence, Cws.1, 4 and 5 came out of the house and were
watching, all of a sudden, accused committed mischief by pouring
petrol and set fire to Honda Deo Scooter bearing No.KA05JR5686 of
CW1 thereby caused loss to CW1 to an extent of Rs.50,000/ and
thereby the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused was enlarged on bail. On receipt of charge sheet,
this court took the cognizance of the alleged offence and furnished
copy of the prosecution papers to the accused person. Charge for the
offences U/s. 435 IPC., & Sec. 2(A) of PDLP Act., was framed by my
predecessor in office, read over and explained to the accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, the prosecution
has examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked nine
documents at Ex.P1 to P9. The statement of accused as required
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded in which, he denied the incriminating
3
C.C.No.1268/2019
evidence appeared against him and he submitted that he has no
defence evidence and the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the
prosecution and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the
materials available on record.
6. In order to prove the guilty of accused, out of seven
witnesses, the prosecution has examined four witnesses as PW1 to 4.
PW1 who is the complainant deposed that, accused is son of his
brother and that on 2792018 he has purchased two wheeler bearing
No.KA05JR5686 from Iran Pasha and documents not transferred
into his name. That on 29092018 he had parked two wheeler in
front of his house at early hours of 3.00 am to 3.30 am accused was
screaming infront of his house and he came out and saw that he set
fire to his two wheeler and hence, he lodged complaint and he
identified complaint at Ex.P1 and signature therein as per Ex.P1(a).
The police visited the spot and conducted Panchanama and have
seized the burnt two wheeler as per Ex.P2 and identified signature
therein as per Ex.P2(a) and he also identified four photographs of the
4
C.C.No.1268/2019
two wheeler which are marked at Ex.P3 to 6 and he identified the
accused by video conference.
7. The PW2 deposed that about 56 months back he went to the
police station and signed Ex.P2 with regard to burning of the two
wheeler as per Ex.P.2(b) and he identified photographs Ex.P3 to 6.
8. The PW3 deposed that on 29112018, the PSI of JJR Nagar
has given requisition to conduct inspection of the vehicle bearing No.
KA05JR5686 and to submit report. Accordingly, he conducted
inspection and noticed the defects that the suspension, headlight
assembly, wiring system, seat and back guard engine and other spare
parts were completely burnt and even after its repair not fit for ride
thereby caused loss to an extent of Rs.50,000/ and has given report
as per Ex.P7 and he identified Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 photographs of two
wheeler.
9. The PW4 Suryaprasad, PSI., JJR Nagar P.S. deposed that on
30092018 when he was in station, at 900 a.m., CW1 appeared and
gave complaint, based on it, he registered the case in Cr.No.228/2018
and submitted to higher authority. FIR is marked as per Ex.P8 and he
identified signature therein as per Ex.P8(a). He further stated that on
5
C.C.No.1268/2019
the same day, he visited the spot and conducted spot mahzar and
seized two wheeler as per Ex.P2(c), he identified Ex.P9, recorded
statement of CW 4 and 5. That on 04122018, he obtained IMV
report from CW6 and he identified photographs of vehicle as per
Ex.P3 to 6, the accused has given his statement and after completion
of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet and he identified the
accused by video conference.
10. On perusal of entire oral evidence of prosecution, all the
four witnesses have supported the prosecution case. But in the cross
examination,PW1 has admitted that accused did not come near his
house and did not quarreled with, he never set fire on his motorcycle
he further admitted that, he did not seen the incident and he did not
given any complaint against the accused. The police have not
prepared any Panchanama in his presence, he put his signature on
Ex.P2 in the police station and further he admitted that he did not
know the contents of Ex.P1 & 2. Though the learned Sr.APP Re
examined him nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. The CW
3 and 4 are the alleged eye witnesses, the prosecution fails to secure
their presence. The PW1 is the prime witness, when himself he has
6
C.C.No.1268/2019
admitted that the accused not set fire to his motorcycle, the case of
the prosecution appears to be doubtful.
11. Though the PW2 has deposed about Panchanama he said
that he has put his signature on Ex.P2 in the police station. Therefore,
the preparation of spot Panchanama in the spot is not proved by the
prosecution.
12. The evidence of rest of the witnesses is in respect of post
incident. As such their evidence fully relevant only when there is
direct evidence on record in respect of guilty of the accused. In
absence of the cogent evidence, the evidence of IO and and the IMV
Inspector is of no use to the prosecution. In this vies of the matter, I
am of the opinion that, virtual there is no evidence on record which
convincingly points towards the guilt of the accused so as to prove the
ingredients of Section 435 of IPC and Sec.2(A) of PDLP Act. It is well
settled proposition of law that, the prosecution must prove the guilt
against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The above discussion
undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubts
7
C.C.No.1268/2019
for the offences alleged against him. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby for the offences punishable U/s. 435 IPC., & Sec. 2(A) of PDLP Act.
The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof computerized, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 20 th February, 2021) ( B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Syed Saleem PW2 : Akmal Pasha PW3 : Vishwanath N.S. PW4 : Surya prasad.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P.2(c ) : signature of PW4
8
C.C.No.1268/2019
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Colour photographs of the vehicle.
Ex.P.7 : Report
Ex.P.7(a) : signature of PW3
Ex.P.8 : FIR in Cr.No.228/2018.
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW4
Ex.P.9 : P.F.No.87/18.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE.9
C.C.No.1268/2019 20022021.
Judgment.
Judgment pronounced in the Open court (vide separately).
ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby for the offences punishable U/s. 435 IPC., & Sec. 2(A) of PDLP Act.
The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
XXXVII ACMM.,B'lore. 10 C.C.No.1268/2019