Bangalore District Court
State By: Madivala Police Station vs Shankar S/O Narayanappa on 9 November, 2015
1 C.C.14343/2012
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Monday the 9th day of November 2015
Present: Sri.Mohan Prabhu, B.Com., M.A, LL.B.,
III Addl., CMM.,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No.14343/2012
Complainant : State by: Madivala Police Station
V/s
Accused : Shankar S/o Narayanappa, 23 yrs,
R/at:No:4, 5th Cross, Bhovi Colony,
Tavarekere Main Road, Bengaluru City.
(By Sri.MKR Adv., Bengaluru)
---
::JUDGEMENT::
Case No. : C.C.No.14343/2012 Date of offence : 4/11/2011 Complainant : Niveditha Prabhakar Accused : Named above 2 C.C.14343/2012 Offence : U/s.380 of IPC Charge : Accused pleaded not guilty Final order : Accused is acquitted Date of order : 9/11/2015 The brief statement of the Reasons for the decision : As follows --- ::REASONS::
The PSI of Madivala Police Station has filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
That on 4/11/2011 at about 10-30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madivala Police Station at HSR Layout, 2nd Main, 8th "C" Cross in Hostel Room of Cw.1 some culprits entered into the Hostel Room and committed the theft of one HP Laptop and One M.P.Player. 3 C.C.14343/2012
3. Based on the complaint lodged by Cw.1, Madivala Police Station Police registered the case on 5/11/2011 in Crime No.1079/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC and dispatched FIR to the Court. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar. The I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses. It is further case of the prosecution is that the accused was arrested by the Madivala Police in Crime No.64/2012 on 6/2/2012 and produced before Cw.11. On the basis of voluntary statement given by the accused, accused led the Investigating Officer to the house of Cw.4 and then the Cw.4 produced the HP Laptop and same was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas Cw.5 and Cw.6 by conducting the Panchanama. The I.O. after completion of investigation has filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.
4. In this case in the chargesheet accused is shown as absconding hence NBW issued against the accused. Accused 4 C.C.14343/2012 appeared before this Court on 4/7/2012 and by engaging counsel released on bail. Chargesheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s.207 of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with. After hearing on both sides charge came to be framed for the offence punishable u/s.380 of IPC for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. During the course of trial on the side of the prosecution 2 witnesses are examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 and document Ex.p1 is marked. Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, prosecution could not be examined Cw.1 to Cw.3, Cw.5 and Cw.6, Cw.10 and Cw.11. After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. No defence evidence is led.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 4/11/2011 at about 10-30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madivala Police Station at HSR Layout, 8th "C" 5 C.C.14343/2012
Cross, in the Hostel Room of Cw.1 the accused committed the theft of one HP Laptop and one M.P.3 Player and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above point:
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order ::REASONS::
9. Point No.1: Pw.1 purchaser of the Laptop. Pw.2 is the Police Constable. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that accused committed the theft of one HP Laptop and one MP3 Player from the Hostel Room of Cw.1. In this case inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution the prosecution could not examined Cw.1. The summons and warrant issued against Cw.1 to Cw.3, Cw.5 and Cw.6 returned with shara that they left the address. 6 C.C.14343/2012
10. Pw.1 deposed that on 8/2/2012 the Madivala Police visited his Travel Office situated at Sarakki along with one persons by name Shankar in connection with theft case. He deposed that the said Shankar had sold 5 Laptops and 2 Mobile Phone to him. He states that on that day he returned all those Laptops and Mobile Phones at that time the Investigating Officer took his signatures. The copy of the Seizer Mahazar is marked through Pw.1 as Ex.p1.
11. Pw.2 deposed that he was working as Police Constable of Madivala Police Station. He states that on 6/2/2012 Cw.11 deputed him and Cw.7 and Cw.9 in order to search the accused persons as well as the stolen properties pertaining to the old crimes of their Police Station. He states that they contacted their reliable informants and obtain necessary information. He states that at about 8-15 p.m. when they were came just near Maruthi Nagar Main Road, they found this accused as shown by their informants. He states that they went near the accused, accused tried to 7 C.C.14343/2012 escape from the said spot but they manage to apprehended the accused. He states that he found a black colour bag in the possession of this accused in which he found 2 Laptops and one Samsung Mobile Phone. He states that during the enquiry the accused failed to give satisfactory reply, hence they took him to the Police Station and produced before Cw.11 and given their Report.
12. I have perused the oral evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and documents produced by the prosecution. According to the case of the prosecution Investigating Officer has seized the 5 Laptops and 2 Mobile Phone from the house of Cw.4 in the presence of independent panchas Cw.5 Imran and Cw.6 Basha. In this case inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution inspite of repeated summons and warrant issued to Cw.1 to Cw.3 and Cw.5 and Cw.6 they have not secured before this Court. Cw.11 also could not examined by the prosecution.
8 C.C.14343/2012
13. Pw.1 deposed that on 8/2/2012 Madivala Police visited his Travel Office situated at Sarakki where he has produced 5 Laptops and Mobile Phone. In Ex.p1 seizer mahazar it is mentioned that this mahazar was drawn at Banneghatta Layout, Mico Layout behind Appollo Venkatadri Layout in the house of Cw.4. But quite contrary to this document Ex.p1 Pw.1 deposed that the Madivala Police visited his Travel Office situated at Sarakki where he has produced 5 Laptops and 2 Mobile Phone. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused Pw.1 deposed that he has signed on the mahazar at the Police Station. The oral evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 are not supported by any other independent witnesses. Pw.2 deposed that he has arrested the accused near Maruthinagar Main Road and found 2 Laptops and One Mobile Phone in the possession of the accused. If at all Pw.2 was arrested the accused near Maruthinagar Main Road he would have drawn the mahazar in that place in the presence of independent panchas. No independent witnesses are there to support the 9 C.C.14343/2012 oral evidence of Pw.2 and to show that he was arrested the accused near Maruthi Nagar Main Road. Pw.2 is the official witness. Since oral evidence of Pw.1 is not corroborating with the document Ex.p1 and oral evidence of Pw.2 is not supported by any independent witnesses, I am of the view that the oral evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s.380 of IPC. There is no complete chain of events in order to link the accused. The prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, I answered point no.1 in the negative.
14. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
U/s.248(1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.10 C.C.14343/2012
His Bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court, this the 9/11/2015).
(Mohan Prabhu), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: John Paul Pw.2: Raghavendra P.
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.p1: Seizer Mahazar
3. Material objects marked: Nil
4. Defence: Nil
- --
III ACMM., Bengaluru.
11 C.C.14343/2012