Bangalore District Court
State By vs Venkatesh @ Bhagawan S/O.Srinivas on 2 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 2nd day of January 2016
PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22483/2010
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
Halasur Police Station
/vs/
Accused Venkatesh @ Bhagawan S/o.Srinivas,
22 yrs. No.162, I Cross, I Main, PK
Quarters, Bakshi Garden, Cottonpet,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The P.S.I of Halasur police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/S.380 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 19/9/2009 between 4.45 PM to 7.00 PM the accused committed theft of Laptop and Software CDs belonging to CW.1 from Data Links Office at 8th Floor, Mittal Towers, M.G.Road, Bengaluru and thereby committed the alleged offence.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in Halasur P.S., Cr.No.423/2009 and FIR was submitted to 2 CC No.22483/2010 the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas and statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was apprehended and the stolen property was recovered and on completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offence.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Accused has appeared before the court through his counsel and has been released on bail. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused for the alleged offence and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. Statement of the accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied the circumstances incriminating him in the prosecution evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 19/9/2009 between 4.45 PM to 7.00 3 CC No.22483/2010 PM the accused committed theft of Laptop and Software CDs belonging to CW.1 from Data Links Office at 8th Floor, Mittal Towers, M.G.Road, Bengaluru and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
The prosecution in support of its case has examined 3 witnesses. PW.1 Babu is the complainant who has deposed that he had gone to give complaint regarding theft of Laptops and thereafter he got properties released from the police and he does not remember who has committed theft of properties.
10. PW.2 Jayaram is the mahazar witness who has turned hostile and denied any mahazar done in his presence and denied having signed the mahazar under Ex.P2.
11. PW.3 Ramesh has deposed that on 13/12/2009 he along with CWs.6, 7, 9 and 10 apprehended the accused along with two 4 CC No.22483/2010 Laptops at Bazaar Street near clock tower who was attempting to sell Laptops to the public and brought the accused along with seized Laptops and produced before the I.O.
12. Apart from PWs.1 to 3 the prosecution has not examined any other witness. PW.1 is the complainant who has partly supported the prosecution by deposing with respect to the complaint being filed for theft of Laptop and he does not depose having identified the accused who has committed theft. PW.2 is the spot mahazar witness has turned hostile to the prosecution denying the prosecution case entirely. PW.3 police officer who has nabbed the accused having found in possession of two Laptops and has produced him before the I.O. The evidence of PW.3 has remained uncorroborated as mahazar witnesses are not examined to corroborate seizure and recovery of the stolen property from the possession of accused. The I.O. is also not examined before the court. Considering these aspects there being no corroboration with regard to seizure and recovery of Laptop from the possession of accused and there being no identification of recovered stolen property, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
5 CC No.22483/2010
13. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable u/s 380 of IPC. Bail bond of accused stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. The interim custody of the property is made absolute.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 2nd day of January 2016).
(ARJUN.S.MALLUR) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution Defence PW.1 Babu Nil PW.2 Jayaram.
PW.3 N.Ramesh.
Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.2.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru 6 CC No.22483/2010