Bangalore District Court
State By Malleshwaram vs Mahesha on 28 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK (SESSIONS) JUDGE-V
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 27th day of FEBRUARY 2015
PRESENT
************
Sri Deshpande.G.S, B.com. LL.M
Presiding Officer, FTC-V.
S.C.No.35/13
COMPLAINANT: State by Malleshwaram
P.S., Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned
Public Prosecutor,
Bangalore.
Vs.
ACCUSED : Mahesha,
S/o Late Ramachandraiah,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Ananda Nagar,
Mylanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore District.
(Represented by Sri.
E.P.Satish, advocate)
1. Date of Commission : 29/3/2012
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 29/3/2012
of Offence
2 S.C. No.35/13
3. Date of arrest of : Accused arrested
accused on 30.03.2012
and released on
08.05.2012
4. Name of the : Smt. Vijaya
complainant Rangaraj
5. Date of :
Commencement 17/6/2014
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
11/11/2014
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Section 397 and
448 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : ACCUSED
FOUND GUILTY
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Malleshwaram P.S. has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, he has committed the offences u/s 397 and 448 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-
On 29/3/2012 at about 11.30 am the accused had come to the Apartment of PW.1 Vijaya for maintenance of lift. At that time there was no power supply. He again came at 3.45 p.m. to the said Apartment and came to the 3 S.C. No.35/13 house of PW.1 Vijaya and has requested PW.1 to give the key of lift. She has opened the door and proceeding inside the house to bring key. At that time, the accused has assaulted PW.1 with MO.1 iron rod and caused hurt and forcibly taken her four gold bangles from her left hand and trying to snatch the mangalya chain from her neck. PW.1 has started hue and cry. At that time, her husband PW.2 who was sleeping in the room and came to hall and accused has assaulted him and pushed him on the ground, and consequently he has sustained grievous hurt. At that time, PW.2 has requested the accused not to make any harm and they are handing over all the valuables to him. PW.1 has opened the door and started making hue and cry. The accused ran away from that place along with four gold bangles -MO.3. PW.1 was chasing him by making hue and cry. Near railway track, Malleshwaram, accused was caught hold by the public and handed over to the police. PWs.1 and 2 went to the Manipal Northside Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. Thereafter, they have also taken the treatment 4 S.C. No.35/13 in Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore. On receipt of information, PW.9 PSI has visited the Manipal Northside Hospital and recorded the complaint of PW.1 as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the same, he has registered the case in Crime No. 90/2012 and has sent the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P10. In the meantime, the police officials have produced the accused in the Hoysala Jeep. Accused has produced MO.3 golden bangles from his possession. PW.9 has seized the same by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Thereafter he has visited the place of incident and conducted the spot panchaname as per Ex.P4 and seized MO.1 iron rod and blood stained saree of PW.1 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. He has produced the accused before the court with remand application. He has handed over further investigation to PW.8 Police Inspector. He has recorded the statement of PW.2 and further statement of PW.1. He has written a letter to the Johnson and Johnson Company about the occupation of accused. They have written a letter stating that the accused is not 5 S.C. No.35/13 working in their company. After receipt of wound certificates by completing investigation formalities, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
3. Accused is on bail. Since the above said offences u/s 397 and 448 of IPC are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, this case was committed to this court u/s 209 of Cr.P.C.,
4. Charge framed and the same is read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution side evidence.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined nine witness as P.W.1 to PW.9 and has got marked fourteen documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10 and seized properties are marked as M.O.1 to 3.
6. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 was recorded. On behalf of accused, no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked. 6 S.C. No.35/13
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is made out that, on 29/3/2012 at about 3.45 p.m. the accused has trespassed the house of PW.1 and has committed the robbery of MO.3 four gold bangles from the PW.1 and has caused hurt to PW.1 and grievous hurt to PW.2 by assaulting them with iron rod MO.1. These bangles were seized from the possession of the accused by drawing a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of doctors PW.3 and PW.6 and investigation officers PW.8 and PW.9. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is not shaken in the cross-examination. Only minor contradictory statements are appearing in the evidence of these two witnesses. It is not a ground to reject the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.7 Manager of Johnsons Lift Pvt. Ltd., has given the letter Ex.P8 stating that, the accused was not working in their company with an intention to help 7 S.C. No.35/13 the accused. This is also not a ground to reject the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Their evidence is reliable. From the evidence on record, it is made out that, the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 397 and 448 of IPC. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to convict the accused for the said offences.
8. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the accused submitted that, evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is not reliable. The accused is not working in Johnsons Lift Pvt. Ltd., and hence question of visiting the accused to the apartment for lift maintenance does not arise. There is no document to show that, lift maintenance was given to said company. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is most unnatural. According to PW.1, she has started making hue and cry after the incident, but neighbours have not came to the scene of occurrence. Even the Security Guard has also not came to the rescue of PW.1. It shows that, no such incident was took place. There is no 8 S.C. No.35/13 consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The investigation officer has not recorded the statements of neighbours and Security Guard. Same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are no other eye-witnesses to the incident except PWs. 1 and 2. According to prosecution, spot panchaname was conducted in the presence of complainant and mahazar witnesses on the day of incident. But, PW1 in her evidence has categorically stated that, she was taking the treatment in the hospital on that day. This falsifies the contention of prosecution that the spot panchaname was conducted on the day of incident. Hence, the contention of the prosecution that MOs. 1 and 2 seized from the spot cannot be believed. The further case of the prosecution that, the accused was caught red-handed near railway track at Malleshwaram by the public, but investigation officer has not recorded the statement of persons who have caught hold the accused. This is a lacuna of case of prosecution. As per the wound certificates Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, PWs. 1 and 2 have sustained only simple injuries. 9 S.C. No.35/13 But, subsequently another wound certificate Ex.P7 was obtained to suite the case of prosecution. Seizure of the MO.3 from the accused is not proved by the prosecution. Independent mahazar witness has not fully supported the case of prosecution and she has deposed that, she could not observe from which pocket of the pant accused has produced the bangles. When seizure of the gold bangles from the possession of the accused is not proved. Accused is not liable for conviction u/s 397 of IPC. The other charge u/s 448 of IPC is also not proved by the prosecution. From looking into entire evidence on record, it is made out that, the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is liable to be acquitted. Hence, the advocate for accused prayed to acquit the accused.
9. On the basis of the above materials, the following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the 10 S.C. No.35/13 accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 397 and 448 of IPC?
2. What Order?
10. My findings to the above 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 :- The contention of the prosecution is that, on 29/3/2012 at about 3.45 p.m. the accused came to the apartment of PW.1 and has requested her to handover the key of lift and thereafter entered the house of PW.1 and has assaulted PWs. 1 and 2 with iron rod and hands and caused hurt to PW.1 and taken away four gold bangles from her by force and also caused grievous hurt to PW.2 and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 397 and 448 of IPC.
12. The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to PW.9. Out of them, PW.1 is the injured and the complainant. She 11 S.C. No.35/13 deposed that, on 29/3/2012 at about 11.30 am, the accused came to their apartment for maintenance of the lift and as there was no power supply at that time, he again came at 3.30 pm. He came to their house and has requested to handover the key of lift. At that time, PW.1 opened door and went inside the house to bring the key, the accused entered the house and assaulted her with MO.1 iron rod and snatched four gold bangles from her and caused hurt to her. She started making hue and cry. On hearing this, her husband came out from the room and accused has also assaulted him and pushed him on the ground and he has sustained grievous hurt. Thereafter, PW.1 has started making hue and cry by opening the door and accused ran away from that place with four gold bangles. Near railway track accused was caught hold by the public and handed over to police officials. Herself and her husband PW.2 have taken the treatment in Manipal Northside Hospital and Columbia Asia Hospital. She has given the complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. She has sustained injury in the incident 12 S.C. No.35/13 and blood was fallen on her saree MO.2. She has identified MO.3 four gold bangles in the police station. She has identified the accused in the Open court and also identified MO.1 iron rod and MO.2 her bloodstained saree.
13. PW.2 is the husband of complainant. He deposed that, on that day, the accused came to their house and has asked the key of lift to his wife. She went inside the house to bring the said key, he heard the crying sound of his wife and came out from the room and noticed that, the accused was in the hall and he was pushing his wife. He tried to rescue his wife. Accused has pushed him on the ground and kicked him and he was fallen on the ground. He has sustained injuries on his head and right shoulder. At that time, accused was holding MO.1 iron rod. Accused has also assaulted him and his wife with iron rod. Accused has taken the four gold bangles of his wife and tried to snatch the mangalya chain from her neck. At that time, he has requested the accused not to make any harm and they are ready to 13 S.C. No.35/13 handover the same to him. His wife has cried for help and the accused ran away from that place. Thereafter, himself and his wife have taken the treatment in the Manipal Northside Hospital and Columbia Asia Hospital. He has identified the accused in the Open Court. He has also identified MO.1 iron rod which is used for commission of offence and bloodstained saree of his wife.
14. PW.4 mahazar witness to the spot panchaname has deposed that, the police have conducted the spot panchaname in her presence as per Ex.P4 and seized iron rod from the spot. At that time, injured PW.1 was present.
15. PW.5 Mahazar witness to the seizure panchaname has deposed that, the police have conducted the seizure panchaname in her presence as per Ex.P5 in the Malleshwaram Police Station and seized MO.3 gold bangles from the accused. She has identified the MO.3.
14 S.C. No.35/13
16. PW.3 Medical Officer of Manipal Northside Hospital has deposed that he has examined PW. 1 and has noticed the following injuries on her body:
1) Swelling over the left occipital area measuring 2 x 2 cm.; and
2) Contusion over the neck;
3) Nail mark over the neck.
On examination of PW.2, PW.3 has noticed following injuries on his body:
1) Blunt injury over the face with left eye with abrasion over the neck;
2) Multiple bruise over the chest and neck.
The above said injuries are simple in nature and would be caused by assaulting with iron rod and hands. He has given the wound certificates as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
17. PW.6 Medical Officer of Columbia Asia Hospital has deposed that, on examination of PW.2, he has noticed the following injuries;
15 S.C. No.35/13
1) Fracture of right clavicle and fracture of third and sixth rib on right side.
2) Black eye on right side.
He has opined that injuries 1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injury no.3 is simple in nature. These injuries will be caused by assaulting and pushing the person on the ground. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P7.
18. PW.7 Manager of Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd., deposed that, as per the requisition issued by the investigation officer he has issued letter as per Ex.P8 stating that, accused was not working in his company.
19. PW.9 PSI in his evidence deposed that, on 29/3/2012, on receipt of information he has visited the Manipal Northside hospital and received the complaint as per Ex.P1 of PW.1 and on the basis of the same, he has registered the case in Crime No.90/12 and has sent the FIR to the court as per Ex.P10. He has seized MO.3 gold bangles from the accused by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Thereafter 16 S.C. No.35/13 he has visited the place of incident and conducted the spot panchaname as per Ex.P4 and seized iron rod MO.1 and bloodstained saree of PW.2 from the spot. He has handed over further investigation to PW.8 police inspector.
20. PW.8 Police Inspector in his evidence has deposed that he has recorded the statement of PW.2 and further statement of PW.1. He has written a letter to Johnson Lift Pvt. Ltd and obtained letter as per Ex.P8 about the occupation of the accused. He has handed over MO.3 gold bangles to PW.1. He has received wound certificates of PWs. 1 and 2. After completion of investigation formalities, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
21. From the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is made out that, on that day the accused came to the house of PW.1 and has asked the key of lift and thereafter trespassed their house and assaulted PWs.1 and 2 with iron rod MO.1 and hands and caused hurt to PW.1 and grievous hurt to PW.2. He has taken away gold bangles 17 S.C. No.35/13 MO.3 from PW.1 by force. PWs. 1 and 2 have identified accused before the court. They have also identified MO.3 before the court. Saree of PW.1 i.e., MO.2 was bloodstained at the time of incident. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 not shaken in the cross-examination. They have no enmity with the accused. Filing of false case against the accused does not arise. Immediately after the incident, complaint was given to the police and accused was caught red-handed by the public and MO.3 gold bangles were seized from the accused in the police station. The accused has not given any explanation about the possession of these gold bangles. PW.1 in the cross- examination has admitted that, she was taking the treatment in the hospital on that day. This does not mean that, spot panchaname was not drawn in the place of occurrence. Even excluding the evidence of PW.1, there is a evidence of independent mahazar witness PW.4 and IO PW.9. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that, spot panchaname was drawn in the place of incident and MO.1 iron rod and bloodstained saree was 18 S.C. No.35/13 seized from the place of incident. Only minor contradictory statements are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is not a ground to reject the evidence of these witnesses. Their evidence is reliable. From the evidence of Doctor PW.6 and Ex.P7, it is made out that, PW.2 has sustained grievous hurt in the incident. PW.3 doctor of Manipal Northside Hospital has given only first-aid treatment and has sent the injured to the Columbia Asia Hospital for further treatment. Therefore, he has given the wound certificates stating that, the injuries causes to PWs. 1 and 2 are simple in nature. This does not affect the case of prosecution. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.6 and Investigation Officers PW.8 and PW.9. Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused on that day has trespassed the house of PW.1 and has caused hurt to PW.1 and caused grievous hurt to PW.2 and has committed the robbery of gold bangles MO.3 from PW.1, and thereby the accused is guilty of offices punishable under Section 397 and 448 of 19 S.C. No.35/13 IPC. Hence, accused is liable to be convicted for the said offences. The contentions of advocate for the accused cannot be accepted. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
22. POINT No.2:- In view of the above discussions and my finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 448 of IPC.
After hearing both sides, separate order will be passed regarding sentence.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February 2015.) (DESHPANDE.G.S.) PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE CITY.20 S.C. No.35/13
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard arguments of both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor prayed to impose maximum sentence to the accused. On the other hand, the advocate for the accused submitted that, accused is aged about 35 years and he is a first offender and doing coolie work and he has got wife and two minor children and they are depending upon his income. If maximum sentence is imposed to the accused, the family members of the accused put to greater hardship. No other criminal case is filed against him. Therefore, the advocate for the accused prayed to release the accused under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct or under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
The Accused on the guise of taking the key of lift of apartment has came to the house of PW1 & 2 and has entered their house observing that only an old aged couple are staying in the house and has assaulted them with iron rod and hands and caused hurt to PW1 21 S.C. No.35/13 & grievous hurt to PW2 and has carried away the four gold bangles from PW1 and as such he has committed the offences under Section 397 and 448 of IPC.
The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 392 of IPC (robbery) is extended upto 10 years and also liable to fine. The offence u/s 397 of IPC is aggravated form of offence of robbery. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. shall not be less than seven years. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 448 of IPC is extended to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both.
Since the accused has committed grave offence u/s 397 of IPC and circumstances under which he has committed the offences he is not entitled to release u/s 360 of Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Considering the aspect of circumstances under which the accused has committed the above said offences and gravity of offences etc. the accused is 22 S.C. No.35/13 convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and has to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. Both sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.
The accused was in Judicial Custody from 30.03.2012 to 08.05.2012 about 38 days, during the course of investigation. This period of retention undergone by the accused is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. to the above said sentence of imprisonment.
Out of the above said fine amount, PW1 is entitled for Rs.5,000/- and PW2 is entitled for Rs.10,000/- as a compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C..
Seized property MO.1 Iron rod is valuable property and it is ordered to be confiscated to the State after completion of appeal period.
23 S.C. No.35/13
Seized property M.O.2 - blood stained saree being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
Interim order releasing the seized property - MO.3 Four Golden Bangles to PW1 - Smt. Vijaya is made absolute.
Personal bond executed by the accused and bond executed by his surety are stand cancelled.
Issue conviction warrant accordingly. Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2015.) (DESHPANDE.G.S.) PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE CITY.
24 S.C. No.35/13ANNEXURE List of witness examined for prosecution:
PW 1 Smt. Vijaya 17/6/2014 PW 2 Rangaraj -do- P.W.3 Dr. P.S.Prakash 15/7/2014 P.W.4 Smt. Jaya -do- P.W.5 Radha Prasad -do- P.W.6 Dr. Kiran -do- P.W.7 L.Balasubramanian 20/8/2014 P.W.8 Sridhar .S. 9/10/2014 P.W.9 Anjanappa 11/11/2014
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex. P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P1(b) Signature of Doctor Ex.P1(c) Endorsement with signature of PW.9 Ex.P.2 Wound Certificate of PW.1 Vijaya Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate of PW.2 Rangaraj Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P4 Spot mahazar Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P5 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P5(b) Signature of Varadarajan Ex.P5(c) Signature of accused Ex.P5(d) Signature of PW.9 25 S.C. No.35/13 Ex.P6 Photograph showing the four bangles as per MO.3 Ex.P7 Wound Certificate of PW.2 issued by Columbia Asia Hospital Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P8 Report of Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P8(a) Signature of Srinivas [authorized signatory] Ex.P9 Notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P10 FIR Ex.P10(a) Signature of P.W.1 MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- M.O.1 Iron Rod [ L shape] M.O.2 Bloodstained saree M.O.3 Four golden bangles [Returned to PW.1]
List of witnesses examined for defence: - NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (DESHPANDE.G.S) PRESIDING OFFICER F.T.C.-V, BANGALORE 26 S.C. No.35/13 Accused produced from J.C. ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Heard arguments of both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor prayed to impose maximum sentence to the accused. On the other hand, the advocate for the accused submitted that, accused is aged about 35 years and he is a first offender and doing coolie work and he has got wife and two minor 27 S.C. No.35/13 children and they are depending upon his income. If maximum sentence is imposed to the accused, the family members of the accused put to greater hardship. No other criminal case is filed against him. Therefore, the advocate for the accused prayed to release the accused under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct or under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
The Accused on the guise of taking the key of lift of apartment has came to the house of PW1 & 2 and has entered their house observing that only an old aged couple are staying in the house and has assaulted them with iron rod and hands and caused hurt to PW1 & grievous hurt to PW2 and has carried away the four gold bangles from PW1 and as such he has committed the offences under Section 397 and 448 of IPC.
The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 392 of IPC (robbery) is extended upto 10 years and also liable to fine. The offence u/s 397 of IPC is aggravated form of offence of robbery. The punishment 28 S.C. No.35/13 prescribed for the offence under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. shall not be less than seven years. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 448 of IPC is extended to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both.
Since the accused has committed grave offence u/s 397 of IPC and circumstances under which he has committed the offences he is not entitled to release u/s 360 of Cr.P.C. on probation of good conduct and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Considering the aspect of circumstances under which the accused has committed the above said offences and gravity of offences etc. the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and has to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence 29 S.C. No.35/13 punishable under Section 448 of IPC. Both sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.
The accused was in Judicial Custody from 30.03.2012 to 08.05.2012 about 38 days, during the course of investigation. This period of retention undergone by the accused is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. to the above said sentence of imprisonment.
Out of the above said fine amount, PW1 is entitled for Rs.5,000/- and PW2 is entitled for Rs.10,000/- as a compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Seized property MO.1 Iron rod is valuable property and it is ordered to be confiscated to the State after completion of appeal period.
Seized property M.O.2 - blood stained saree being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
Interim order releasing the seized property - MO.3 Four Golden Bangles to PW1 - Smt. Vijaya is made absolute.
30 S.C. No.35/13
Personal bond executed by the accused and bond executed by his surety are stand cancelled.
Issue conviction warrant accordingly. Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-V BANGALORE 31 S.C. No.35/13 32 S.C. No.35/13 FORM No. 34 IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK - V, BANGALORE CITY S.C. No. 35/2013 COMPLAINANT : The State by Malleshwaram Police Station, BANGALORE.
Versus
ACCUSED : Mahesha
FORM No. 34
Warrant of Commitment on a sentence of imprisonment or fine if passed by a Magistrate (See Section 248 and 255) To, The Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore City.
WHEREAS on the 28th day of February 2015, Accused - Mahesha, S/o Late Ramachandraiah, Aged about 34 years, R/at Ananda Nagara, Mylanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District prisoner in Case No. S.C. No. 35/2013, was convicted before me Sri. Deshpande G.S., Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - V, Bangalore City of the offences of Section 397 & 448 of IPC and 33 S.C. No.35/13 The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and has to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. Both sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.
The accused was in Judicial Custody from 30.03.2012 to 08.05.2012 about 38 days, during the course of investigation. This period of retention undergone by the accused is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. to the above said sentence of imprisonment.
Out of the above said fine amount, PW1 is entitled for Rs.5,000/- and PW2 is entitled for Rs.10,000/- as a compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
This is authorise and require you to receive the said Accused - Mahesh, S/o Late Ramachandraiah into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant, and thereby carry the aforesaid sentence into execution according to law.
Dated, this the 28th day of February 2015.
Seal of the Court. Signature.
34 S.C. No.35/13