Bangalore District Court
State By S.J.P.Park Police Station vs Kondappagiri Madhukar Reddy on 1 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 1st day of February, 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.809/2017
COMPLAINANT:- State by S.J.P.Park Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: : Kondappagiri Madhukar Reddy
@ Madhu,
S/o. K.Ramachandra Reddy,
Aged about 32 years,
Native Place: Divupalli Village,
Balireddy Garipalli Post,
Thambalapalli Mandal,
Chitthoor District,
Andhra Pradesh State,
Present R/at No.8-155-B, Babu Colony,
Madanapalli Town,
Chitthoor District.
1. Date of commission of offence : 19.11.2013
2. Date of report of offence : 19.11.2013
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : Produced under body
2
S.C.No.809/2017
warrant
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Jyothi Udaya
5. Date of recording evidence : 7.2.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 3.1.2020
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.397, 307, 326, 342,
201 and 75 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/Sec.307,
326, 342, and 75 of IPC.
against Accused
is not proved.
Offence U/Sec.397, and
201 of IPC.
against Accused
is proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by :Smt. B.A.Sujatha, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Sub-Inspector of Police, S.J.P. Park police station has filed charge sheet against accused for offences punishable U/Sec.342, 326, 307, 397 and 201 of IPC., in Cr.No.152/2013. 3
S.C.No.809/2017
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; 2.1) Case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2013 morning, in order to have unlawful gain, accused was watching by holding weapon near Corporation A.T.M. Centre situated at J.C. Road within the jurisdiction of S.J.Park police station. At around 7.00 a.m., Jyothi Uday came to the said A.T.M.Centre to withdraw cash. Suddenly, accused entered into the said A.T.M.Centre, shutdown the rolling shutter of the A.T.M.Centre, threatened the complainant by showing sickle and ordered to draw the amount. When Cw.1 refused to do so, in order to murder her, accused caused assault several time on her head, face, by using deadly weapon sickle, caused bleeding injuries. Thereafter accused had taken away bag of the complainant contained A.T.M.Card, pan card, D.L. Bus Pass and purse containing cash of Rs.200/- and one Nokia mobile phone. Accused sold nokia mobile phone for Rs.500/- to Cw.19 to have unlawful gain. In order to destroy evidence, accused had thrown dummy pistol and 4 S.C.No.809/2017 documents during transit, thereby accused committed offences punishable U/Sec.342, 326, 307, 397 and 201 of IPC.
2.2) Taking the matter for investigation. Investigation Officer produced to the spot, conducted spot panchanama, seized DVR of the CC camara, copied recordings of the said CC camera into CD. Investigation Officer enquired, recorded statements of witnesses. Accused in this case was arrested by Andrapradesh Police. Presence of the accused secured by the Investigation Officer through body warrant. By taking the accused into custody, Investigation Officer interrogate the accused, recorded his voluntary statement. On the basis of the information given by the accused in his voluntary statement, robbed mobile phoone of Cw.1 was recovered. After collecting wound certificate of Cw.1 from the hospital, he submitted charge sheet to the jurisdictional magistrate.
3. Cognizance for the offence shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused was 5 S.C.No.809/2017 registered in C.C.No.14122/2017 on the file of VI- Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Accused was in judicial custody. Since offences alleged against accused are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to this court. After committal, this case is re- registered as S.C.No.809/2017.
4. There was no grounds to discharge the accused as per Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Accused did not pleaded guilty. After hearing on 14.1.2019, charge against the accused framed, which he denied and claimed to be tried. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opened case for prosecution as per Section 222 of Cr.P.C.
5. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused, prosecution examined 24 witnesses at Pw.1 to Pw.24, got exhibited 41 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.41 and got identified 10 material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.11.
6
S.C.No.809/2017
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution were explained to the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded his statement. Accused denied all incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence. Accused did not produced any documents, materials on his behalf. Further, no defence evidence is 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. Now, points arising for determination are :
1 Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 19.11.2013 at about 7.00 a.m, near Corporation A.T.M. Centre situated at J.C.Road accused committed robbery by causing grievious hurt on Pw.1 by using deadly weapon sickle thereby committed offence 7 S.C.No.809/2017 punishable U/s.342, 326, 307, 397 of IPC as alleged in the charge sheet?
2 Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place, after commission of offence, in order to disappearance of evidence accused destroyed dummy pistol and other documents thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s. 201 of I.P.C.?
3 Whether prosecution proves that accused is liable for enhanced punishment U/s.75 of I.P.C.
due to conviction by a court for an offence punishable under chapter XII or XVII of I.P.C. with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards ?
4 What Order ?
9. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
8
S.C.No.809/2017
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINTS NO.1 TO 3:- These points are taken together to avoid repeated discussions.
11. What facts that prosecution have to prove in this case is commission of robbery either by way of theft or extortion by the accused person and an attempt to cause death or grievious hurt to the complainant.
12. In order to prove ingredients of the charges framed against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.342, 326, 307, 397 and 201 of IPC., prosecution examined Pw.1/Cw.1/Jyothi Uday who is the victim, and complainant in this case. In her evidence, Pw.1 explained how incident had taken place on 19.11.2013 at around 6.30 a.m. Pw.1 explained that a person aged about 25 to 30 years 9 S.C.No.809/2017 wearing white and blue colour half sleeve shirt, cream colour pant with bag, suddenly entered into A.T.M.Centre where she was present to draw amount. He took out one gun from his bag, caught hold on her neck, pushed her to the corner of the A.T.M.Centre stating that he is going to kill her. Even though she begged with forded hand, he removed sickle from his bag, hit on her head. She lost conscious due to shock. At that time, she had a purse containing cash of Rs.200/- and Nokia mobile phone, Debit Card, Pan Card, Voter I.D.Card. He had taken away the said purse. After gaining conscious, she succeeded to draw attention of the passer. Thereafter she had taken and admitted to B.G.S. Hospital for treatment. When she was under treatment in B.G.S.Hospital, S.J.Park police came and collected particulars of the incident. She affixed her left thumb impression on her statement. Pw.1 identified L.T.M. on her statement in the form of complaint which is marked at Ex.P.1. Aforesaid evidence adduced by Pw.1, proves the happening of incident of robbery and assault by using deadly weapon on her.
10
S.C.No.809/2017
13. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 is supported by the evidence of Pw.2/Cw.6/K.Ravi Babu who was the then Assistant General Manager of S.T.F. Centre of Corporation Bank, Bengaluru. In his evidence, Pw.2 deposed that he came to know about assault and robbery taken place with Pw.1.
14. Pw.6/Cw.28/Uday Kumar is husband of Pw.1/Jyothi Uday. In his evidence, Pw.6 deposed that on 19.11.2013 S.J.P.Park police telephoned and informed him about assault caused on Pw.1/Jyothi Uday. Immediately he visited Victor Hospital, then to Nimhans Hospital where he saw his wife. Pw.1/Jyothi Uday was in a serious condition. Doctor who treated her shifted her to B.G.S. hospital, Kengeri. He came to know about the incident of robbery and assault taken place with Cw.1 in a A.T.M.Centre of Corporation Circle.
15. Pw.7/Cw.24/Chandrashekhar, Assistant Director of RFSL., deposed with respect to tracing of Group 'B' human 11 S.C.No.809/2017 bloodstained on chudidar, vale, top, and pant of Pw.1 seized by Investigation Officer during investigation.
16. Pw.8/Cw.23/Dr.Luka Shankar deposed that on 19.11.2013 at 2.30 p.m., Pw.1/Jyothi Uday brought to B.G.S. hospital from Nimhans hospital for treatment. He was informed about the incident that had taken place on 19.11.2013 at 7.00 a.m., at Corporation A.T.M.Centre situated at N.R.Circle. Cw.1 was admitted as an inpatient in their hospital. Pw.8 identified intimation issued by him to Kengeri police station at Ex.P.7.
17. Pw.14/Cw.35/ H.K.Mahadeva, H.C.5491 deposed that on 19.11.2013 Cw.39/Santhosh informed him about a lady sustaining bleeding injuries at Corporation Bank A.T.M.Centre, J.C.Road. When he went to the spot, Cw.34 PC.No.10841 was shifting that lady to an auto. There was bleeding injuries on her face and head. Both of them shifted that lady to Victoria hospital. Doctors at Victoria hospital shifted her to Nimhans hospital for higher treatment. Uday 12 S.C.No.809/2017 Kumar, husband of that lady came to Nimhans Hospital, and shifted her to B.G.S. Hospital.
18. Pw.16/Cw.22/Dr. Amith, Junior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, B.G.S.hospital deposed that as per wound certificate issued by the hospital, Pw.1 Jyothi Uday sustained a cut lacerated wound measuring 6 cm running across the nosal ala. There was a cut lacerated wound over parietal vertex measuring approximately 15 cm. A cut wound measuring 6 cm. behind the vertex. City scan report showed fracture of nasal bone, fracture of antiviral wall of left maxillary sinus. City Scan of brain showed fracture fragment left parietal region, fracture of occipital bone. Left cortical (brain) contusion with streak of hemorrhage. In his opinion injuries No.1 to 6 found on the body of Jyothi Uday are grievious in nature. Description of wounds found on the body of Cw.1-Jyothi Uday is similar to the deposition given by her, explaining assault made by the culprit on her by using sickle.
13
S.C.No.809/2017
19. Pw.19/Cw.39/Santhosh P.S.I. deposed that on 19.11.2013 afternoon at 2.45 p.m., he recorded statement of Cw.1/Jyothi Uday in B.G.S.Hospital in the presence of doctor, registered the same in F.I.R.No.152/2013 for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C. On the same day, he prepared spot panchanama, as per Ex.P.18, seized sample blood, bloodstained clothes and hand bag.
20. Ex.P.1 statement of the injured in the form of complaint is identified by Pw.1. In the said document, Pw.1 has explained the incident which she deposed before the court. In the cross-examination of Pw.1, no such admissions elicited to show that averments made in Ex.P.1, statement of complainant is false. Further, no such admissions elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.1 to show that complainant had any reason to file a false complaint against the accused person that too on an allegation of robbery with an attempt to murder. Hence contents of Ex.P.1 is proved. 14
S.C.No.809/2017
21. Ex.P.3 is the seizure panchanama drawn at the time of seizure of DVR installed in the ATM Centre, where incident of assault on Pw.1 was taken place. Pw.3/Cw.12 Arun, one of the panch witness deposed that on 25.11.2013. Ex.P.3 seizure panchanama was prepared in his presence at the time of seizing DVR installed behind ATM machine at Corporation ATM Centre situated at J.C.Road. He identified DVR which was marked at Ex.P.2. In the cross-examination Pw.3, no such admissions elicited to show that Pw.3 was deposing false. Further aforesaid seizure is proved with the help of evidence adduced by the Investigation Officer Somashekhar, Pw.23/Cw,40. Hence contents of Ex.P.3/seizure panchanama is proved. Ex.P.4 is certificate issued by Pw.5/Cw.27 Suresha D. stating installation of CC TV and DVR in the ATM centre of Corporation Bank at J.C.Road. Ex.P.4 satisfy requirements U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.20 recording of CC TV footage dated 19.11.2013 Tuesday. Further, photographs at Ex.P.31 are 6 footages of CC TV Recordings of 19.11.2013. In those 6 footages of the 15 S.C.No.809/2017 recordings in the CC TV figures of the complainant/pw.1 and accused person is visible. Ex.P.35 is the panchanama drawn at the time of seizure of bloodstained clothes worn by Pw.1/Smt. Jyothi Uday at the time of happening of incident. Contents of those documents are proved with the help of the evidence adduced by the Investigating Officer/ Pw.23/Somashekhar.
22. Recovery of Nokia mobile phone of the complainant Pw.1 is proved by the evidence adduced by Pw.13/Cw.19/Abujar Gafhari. Pw.13 identified his signature on Ex.P.2/seizure mahazar and he identified Mo.1 mobile phone. His evidence is corroborated with the evidence adduced by the investigating officer. No such admissions elicited in the cross-examination of Pw.13 to show that Pw.13 is deposing false. Even though there are some admissions in the cross- examination of Pw.13, that itself is not sufficient to doubt very recovery of mobile phone of Pw.1.
16
S.C.No.809/2017
23. Fact of seizure to be proved by the evidence adduced by officer who seized such properties. No person witnessing a search U/s.100 of Cr.P.C. shall be required to attend court as a witness of search unless specially summoned by it. The same rule is applicable for proving seizure of the things under the cover of panchanama. In this case,investigating officer identified panchanama drawn at the time of seizure. Further, investigating officer identified articles seized under the cover of panchanma. Property forms were sent to Magistrate immediately after seizure and the same are identified by the investigation officer. Description of property seized are explained in those property forms. Hence seizure are proved in accordance with provisions of Cr.P.C.
24. Ex.P.16 wound certificate is identified by Pw.16/Cw.22 Dr.Amith. In his evidence Pw.16 deposed with respect to admission of Pw.1 as an inpatient. Pw.16 explained 6 wounds found on the body of Pw.1. According to Pw.16, injury No.1 to 6 shown in the wound certificate 17 S.C.No.809/2017 Ex.P.16 are grievious in nature. In Ex.P.16 injuries explained as cut lacerated wounds on face of Pw.1/Jyothi Uday, CT scan has shown fracture of nasal bone. Fracture of antiviral on left maxillary, sinus fracture of fragment, fracture of occipital bone. Injuries explained by Pw.16 sustained to Pw.1 would come under the definition of "grievious hurt" explained in definition of 7th injury U/s.320 of I.P.C. Hence sustaining grievous hurt by Pw.1 is proved. Ex.P.7 police intimation issued by casualty medical officer, BGS Global Hospital contained history of incident and condition of injured Pw.1.
25. Evidence adduced by Pw.2/Cw.41 C. Thimmaiah A.C.P. proved that accused got arrested in Cr.No.69/2014 of Pileru police station, Chittoor district, Andhrapradesh. On the basis of request made by complainant police, jurisdictional court at Andrapradesh handed over accused to produce in this case. Taking the accused to police custody, Investigation Officer interrogated the accused. Pw.21 identified records relating to seizure of weapon used in the commission of this 18 S.C.No.809/2017 offence seized in Cr.No.302/2011 of Kambalapalli police station.
26. PW-21 identified weapon at Ex.P.34 photograph. PW-21 identified the certified copy of the Judgment in which accused Kondappagiri Madukar Reddy convicted by the Court of Sessions of Chittoor division at Madanapalle in SC No.320/2011 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act marked at Ex.P.37.
26.1) PW-21 identified persons shown in the footages of CC TV camera recordings transferred to CD displayed through laptop before the Court. PW-21 deposed that person who caused assault is the accused Kondappagiri Madukar Reddy and lady shown in the recording is CW-1-Joythi. PW-21 identified the sickle used for causing assault on PW-1 by the accused which is same sickle shown at Ex.P.34.
26.2) This incident was taken place on 19.11.2013. After commission of offence, accused succeeded to remain 19 S.C.No.809/2017 absconding. Evidence adduced by PW-21(CW-41)- C.Thimmaiah, ACP made it clear that accused got arrested in Crime No.69/2014 by Pileru PS, Chittoor District of Andrapradesh. During custodial interrogation, accused disclosed his involvement in this case in Crime No.152/2013 of S.J.Park PS. Seeking permission to reopen the case for investigation due to already filed C-final report, PW-21 proceeded with investigation. On 06.03.2017 only, accused Kondappagiri Madukar Reddy brought from Kadapa Central Prison and produced before PW-21. Hence, non-availability of weapon used for commission of offence for recovery is genuine. Hence, identification of the weapon used in this case by the accused, seized by Pileru PS, Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh State in Crime No.69/2014 at Ex.P.34 need to be taken into consideration. Ex.P.37 Judgment made it clear that complainant police was unable to trace the accused immediately after commission of offence because he got conviction and was serving sentence in Central Prison, Kadapa. Seizure of weapon shown in Ex.P.34 photo is 20 S.C.No.809/2017 supported by PW-22(CW-25) Shilam Reddy Shekar witness present at the time of preparation of Ex.P.13 seizure panchanama on 04.02.2017 by Madanapalli to town PS. PW- 22 identified that weapon shown in Ex.P.34 photograph was seized from accused Madukara Reddy. PW-22 identified Madukar Reddy before the Court who produced through VC.
27. PW-25(CW-27)-D.Mehaboob Basha, the then PI, Rims PS, Kadapa deposed that on 03.12.2011 Sri.S.V.Ramana, ARSI of Kadapa District lodged complaint about escaping UT No.4209 by name K.Madhukar Reddy, S/o.Ramachandra Reddy of Diguvapalli Village, prisoner from their custody. Evidence adduced by PW-25 made it clear that accused K.Madhukar Reddy escaped from the lawful custody of the Kadapa police, entered Karnataka state to conceal his present. Thereafter in order to have unlawful gain, he committed the offence alleged in the case on 19.11.2013. History of criminal cases produced by the investigation 21 S.C.No.809/2017 officer PW-21, made it clear that accused K.Madhukar Reddy is having the tendency of commission of offence for gain.
28. Next aspect required to be proved by the prosecution is that robbery and grievious hurt caused on Pw.1 was done by the accused only. To prove this fact, prosecution have relied upon evidence adduced by the victim Pw.1. In her evidence Pw.1 has explained identification of person who assault on her, robbed her, when the incident had taken place. In her evidence, Pw.1 deposed that, on 17.3.2017 she visited Parappana Agrahara Central Prison. 7 people were shown in a line to identify accused among them. She identified the person who caused assault on her in the ATM Centre. On 13.2.2019, Pw.1 identified accused person before the court shown to her through video conference. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 is corroborated with the evidence adduced by the Investigating Officer. Further, involvement of accused in the case of assault and robbery is established by 22 S.C.No.809/2017 the investigating officer by producing report of "Test Identification Parade" as per Ex.P.32.
29. With the help of evidence adduced by aforesaid witness coupled with proved contents of the exhibited documents, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 19.11.2013 accused did caused assault on Pw.1 by using deadly weapon sickle at the time of commission of robbery resulted grievious hurt on her head and face.
30. In order to prove causing disappearance of evidence of offence, Pw.1 deposed that at the time of incident, she had documents i.e., debit card, pan card, voter ID card, and mobile phone hand set in a purse and the same was taken by the accused. During the course of custodial interrogation, accused had given information that he had thrown documents robbed from the complainant. Accused had shown the dust bin in a platform of Majestic BMTC bus stand where he had thrown documents. Further, he sold 23 S.C.No.809/2017 mobile hand set of Pw.1. Pw.13/Cw.19 receiver of mobile hand set of Pw.1 from the accused deposed before the court, identified accused and mobile hand set of Pw.1. Accused had not given any satisfactory explanation for aforesaid incriminating materials, evidence deposed against him. Hence prosecution proved that accused had committed offence punishable U/s.201 of I.P.C.
31. Carefully considered admission elicited in the cross-examination of complainant, medical officer and Investigation Officer, receiver, panch witnesses, and suggestions made to prosecution witnesses during cross- examination. Defence side is unable to suggest a probable defence or reason for filing false case against the accused.
32. Carefully perused answered given by the accused person for incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution side evidence U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused had not given any explanation to probabalise filing false case 24 S.C.No.809/2017 against him. Except denial of incriminating circumstances, accused had not given any explanation that for what reason injured and witnesses deposed against him. No documents, material is produced by the accused to establish probable defence that he is innocent and a false case has foist against him.
33. Offences alleged against the accused in this case are wrongful confinement, voluntary causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, attempt to murder, robbery, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII after previous conviction.
34. Case of the prosecution is that in order to commit robbery of persons withdrawing amount in the Corporation Bank ATM centre, accused was waiting armed with deadly weapons. When complainant PW-1 approached the said ATM centre, accused threatened her to withdraw amount from the 25 S.C.No.809/2017 ATM and to hand over the same to him. When PW-1 refused to do so, by using sickle, accused caused assault on the head, face and other parts of the body of PW-1 and had taken away her purse containing mobile phone, documents and cash.
35. Evidence adduced by the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution particularly complainant / victim, it is made clear that accused committed robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to PW-1. Offences charged u/s 342, 326, 307 of IPC would come within the ambit of offence punishable u/s 397 of IPC. Prosecution is unable to prove intension of the accused to commit either wrongful confinement of PW-1 or attempt to her murder. Proven facts established that in order to commit robbery, accused caused assault on PW-1 by using deadly weapon which attract provisions of offence punishable u/s 397 of IPC. 26
S.C.No.809/2017
36. So for as causing disappearance of evidence of offence is concerned, it is necessary to consider evidence adduced by PW-1- Jyothi Uday, PW-13(CW-19) -Abujar Gafari receiver of the stolen mobile phone of the PW-1. PW-21(CW-
41) - C.Thimmaiah, ACP, South East Division, Bengalore. PW- 1 has deposed that her purse contained Rs.200/- cash, Nokia mobile phone with SIM, debit card, PAN card, DL, Voter ID card and ATM card, which was taken away by the accused after causing assault on her. PW-13(CW-19)-Abujar Gafari deposed before the Court on 21.11.2013 he purchased Nokia mobile phone from the accused for Rs.500/-. On 21.11.2013 Bangalore police came to his house and informed that mobile phone purchased from the accused belongs to the victim of this case. On 17.03.2017 he went to Prappana Agrahara Central Prison, Bangalore participation in the Test Identification Parade and identified the accused from whom he purchased the mobile phone. PW-21(CW-41)-C.Thimmaiah, ACP, deposed that on 07.03.2017 he obtained police custody of the accused, interrogated and recorded his voluntary 27 S.C.No.809/2017 statement, translated to Kannada with the help of CW-37- Rudreshaiah. In the voluntary statement, accused had given the information that he is going to show the place where he had thrown bank pass books, two ATM cards and other documents found in the bag of the lady. Accused took them to the Corporation Bank ATM Centre at N.R.Circle of Bangalore city where he had committed robbery of PW-1. Thereafter, he had shown places where he stayed. Thereafter he took them to Majestic BMTC bus stand platform No.13 and had shown the dustbin, place in which he had thrown ATM cards, Bank pass book robbed from PW-1. As three years were lapsed, no documents were found in the said dustbin. Aforesaid evidence made it clear that accused destroyed documents robbed from PW-1 in order to cause disappearance of evidence of offence. Act of the accused attracts offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC.
37. To prove ingredients of section 75 of IPC is concerned, prosecution produced certified copy of the 28 S.C.No.809/2017 Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court of Sessions of Chittoor division at Madanapalle convicting the accused in SC No.320/2011 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act marked at Ex.P.37. The said document being certified copy of the Judgment passed by the competent court of law, is admissible in evidence. In Ex.P.37, accused convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC read with section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act which are not coming under Chapter XII or XVII of IPC. Hence, enhancement of punishment for offences proved in this case can not be made as per section 75 of IPC.
38. Prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt about commission of offence of robbery with causing grievous hurt to PW-1 by the accused punishable u/s 397 of IPC. Further, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt about commission of offence of causing disappearance of evidence of offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC. Hence, 29 S.C.No.809/2017 accused held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 397 and 201 of IPC.
39. Ingredients of offence punishable u/s 342 of IPC for wrongful confinement, section 326 of IPC causing grievous hurt, Section 307 of IPC attempt murder are coming within definition of under section 397 of IPC. It is not just and proper to bifurcate and imposed sentence for the aforesaid sections of law. Further, prosecution is unable to prove that accused is liable for enhanced punishment u/s 75 of IPC. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable u/s 342, 326, 307 and 75 of IPC. Hence point No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and point No.3 is answered in the negative.
40. POINT NO.4 In view of the above findings on point No.1, following order is made;
30
S.C.No.809/2017 ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is found guilty for offences punishable U/Sec.397 and 201 of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for offences punishable U/Sec.342, 326, 307 and 75 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
Call on for hearing on sentence, by 2.2.2021. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 1st day of February 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
31
S.C.No.809/2017 2.2.2021 Further Order on imposing sentence Accused is in J.C. produced through V.C. Accused submitted that he is suffering from family problems. His mother is dead. His father met with an accident and bedridden. He is having wife and children. Hence, prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Smt. B.A.S. advocate for accused submitted that accused in J.C. throughout trial. Hence period of judicial custody undergone by the accused may be set off for the period of sentence. Smt. B.A.S. advocate for accused further submitted that minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be awarded.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, accused is a convicted criminal, escaped from prison. Accused has committed this offence in a brutal manner. Complainant / victim sustained severe injuries and 32 S.C.No.809/2017 had taken treatment as an inpatient for more than 15 days. Accused is not having fear of law. For the said reasons, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused.
Perused Section 397 of I.P.C. which carry punishment which shall not be less than 7 years. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that court may award imprisonment upto life term for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.
Considering the manner in which offence committed in this case is really brutal. To commit robbery, accused caused assault on head, face of a lady by using deadly weapon like sickle. Records speak that victim was under
treatment for considerably long time. Criminal history of the accused is not in favour of the accused to show leneincy in imposing sentence.33
S.C.No.809/2017 As conviction is made for section 397 and 201 of I.P.C.
provision of Section 4 of P.O.Act 1958 is not applicable.
Considering the fact that accused is already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused shall be set off, as per provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused and considering the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 and 201 of I.P.C.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.34
S.C.No.809/2017 Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable U/s.201 of I.P.C.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Period of judicial custody of accused shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Bail bond and hid surety bond shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Office is directed to send certified copy of entire judgment to the accused to forthwith, free of cost through the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.35
S.C.No.809/2017 Invoking provisions U/s.357(A) of Cr.P.C., injured Pw.1/ Jyothi Uday is recommended for compensation as per the scheme.
Office is hereby directed to send copy of this judgment of District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru to award compensation to Pw.1/Jyothi Uday as per Scheme.
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 2nd day of February 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.36
S.C.No.809/2017 ANNEXURE I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Jyothi Udaya
Pw.2 K.Ravi Babu
Pw.3 Aruna
Pw.4 Ramanjaneya
Pw.5 Suresh D.
Pw.6 Udaykumar
Pw.7 Chandrashekhar
Pw.8 Dr.Lukshankar
Pw.9 K.R.Ramesh
Pw.10 Puttaraju
Pw.11 P.Hanumantha Naika
Pw.12 Manjunatha
Pw.13 Abujar Gaphari
Pw.14 H.K.Mahadeva
Pw.15 Ramesh
Pw.16 Dr.Amit
Pw.17 Mahesh
Pw.18 Venkatesh
Pw.19 Santhosh
Pw.20 Rudreshaiah
37
S.C.No.809/2017
Pw.21 C.Thimmaiah
Pw.22 Sheelam Reddy Shekhar
Pw.23 Somashekhar
Pw.24 Mannan
II. For Defence:-
-Nil
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Thumb Impression of Pw.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.19 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.2 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.13 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.3 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.3 ExP.3(b) Signature of Pw.4 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.4 Letter Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of Pw.21 38 S.C.No.809/2017 Ex.P.5 & Ex.P.6 Photos Ex.P.5 Report Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.6 Sample RFSL Seal Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.7 Intimation Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.8 Ex.P.8 One document in Telugu language Ex.P.9 Transcription of Ex.P.8 in Kannada language Ex.P.10 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.11 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.12 Panchanama Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw.11 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.13 Panchanama Ex.P.13(a) Signature of Pw.11 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of Pw.22 Ex.P.14 Report Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Pw.12 Ex.P.15 F.I.R. 39 S.C.No.809/2017 Ex.P.16 Wound Certificate Ex.P.16(a) Signature of Pw.16 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.17 Endorsement Ex.P.18 Panchanama Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.19 Ex.P.19 Property Form Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Pw.19 Ex.P.20 Sketch Ex.P.20(a) Signature of Pw.19 Ex.P.21 Endorsement Ex.P.21(b) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.22 to 7 photos Ex.P.28 Ex.P.29 Property Form
Ex.P.30 to Two sheets containing 7 photos Ex.P.31 Ex.P.32 Copy of Report Ex.P.32(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.33 F.I.R.
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.34 Photo of weapon Ex.P.34(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.35 Copy of order passed in Cr.No.302/2011 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of Pw.21 40 S.C.No.809/2017 Ex.P.35(b) Signature of Pw.24 Ex.P.36 F.I.R. in Cr.No.104/2011 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.37 Copy of judgment in Cr.No.34/2005 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of Pw.21 Ex.P.35 Panchanama Ex.P.35(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.36 Property Form Ex.P.36(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.37 Property Form Ex.P.37(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.38 Panchanama Ex.P.38(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.39 Property Form Ex.P.39(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.40 Property Form Ex.P.40(a) Signature of Pw.23 Ex.P.41 F.I.R. Ex.P.41(a) Signature of Pw.25 For Defence side:- -Nil- IV List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 Mobile 41 S.C.No.809/2017 Mo.1(a) Signature of Pw.23 Mo.2 DVR Mo.3 Bloodstained cotton Mo.4 Cotton Mo.5 Bloodstained mud Mo.6 One chudidar vale Mo.7 One hand bag Mo.8 One chudidar top Mo.9 One chudidar pant Mo.3(a) to Mo.9(a) RFSL Seal Mo.10 DVD Mo.3(a) to Mo.7(a) Signatures Mo.10(a) Signature of Pw.21 Mo.8(a) & Mo.9(a) Signatures of Pw.21 Mo.11 Carbon K-695 Mobile Hand set Mo.11(a) Signature of Pw.23 Mo.8(a) & Mo.9(a) Signatures of Pw.24 (RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.42
S.C.No.809/2017 1.2.2021 Accused produced through V.C. Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is found guilty for offences punishable U/Sec.397 and 201 of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for offences punishable U/Sec.342, 326, 307 and 75 of I.P.C.
Further Judgment on imposing sentence is deferred.
Call on for hearing on sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
43
S.C.No.809/2017 2.2.2021 Further Order on imposing sentence Accused is in J.C. produced through V.C. Accused submitted that he is suffering from family problems. His mother is dead. His father met with an accident and bedridden. He is having wife and children. Hence, prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Smt. B.A.S. advocate for accused submitted that accused in J.C. throughout trial. Hence period of judicial custody undergone by the accused may be set off for the period of sentence. Smt. B.A.S. advocate for accused further submitted that minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be awarded.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, accused is a convicted criminal, escaped from prison. Accused has committed this offence in a brutal manner. Complainant / victim sustained severe injuries and 44 S.C.No.809/2017 had taken treatment as an inpatient for more than 15 days. Accused is not having fear of law. For the said reasons, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offence proved against accused.
Perused Section 397 of I.P.C. which carry punishment which shall not be less than 7 years. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that court may award imprisonment upto life term for offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.
Considering the manner in which offence committed in this case is really brutal. To commit robbery, accused caused assault on head, face of a lady by using deadly weapon like sickle. Records speak that victim was under
treatment for considerably long time. Criminal history of the accused is not in favour of the accused to show leneincy in imposing sentence.45
S.C.No.809/2017 As conviction is made for section 397 and 201 of I.P.C.
provision of Section 4 of P.O.Act 1958 is not applicable.
Considering the fact that accused is already in judicial custody, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused shall be set off, as per provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused and considering the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 and 201 of I.P.C.
Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.46
S.C.No.809/2017 Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable U/s.201 of I.P.C.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Period of judicial custody of accused shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.
Bail bond and hid surety bond shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
Office is directed to send certified copy of entire judgment to the accused to forthwith, free of cost through the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.47
S.C.No.809/2017 Invoking provisions U/s.357(A) of Cr.P.C., injured Pw.1/ Jyothi Uday is recommended for compensation as per the scheme.
Office is hereby directed to send copy of this judgment of District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru to award compensation to Pw.1/Jyothi Uday as per Scheme.
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.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.