Bangalore District Court
Yeshawanthpura Police Station vs Unknown on 28 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY, 2015
C.C. No.11769/2013
Present: SMT. HEMAVATHI, B.B.M., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE
COMPLAINANT : Yeshawanthpura Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
Syed Mohammed Saleem @
Saleem S/o. Late. Mohammed
Sardar, Aged about 25 years,
R/o. Backside of Goods Shed
Masjid, Opp: Wooden Depot,
Tumkur Town.
(Reptd. by Sri. U.P.K. Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 08.04.2013
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : 18.05.2013
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s.380 of IPC
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 27.11.2013
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 12.12.2014
2 C.C.No.11769/2013
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(HEMAVATHI)
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The accused has been charge sheeted by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Yeshawanthpura Police Station for the
offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of case of the prosecution is that:
On 08.04.2013 at about 01-00 AM, accused entered into
the house No.22, 1st Stage, 7th Cross, K.N. Extension,
Yeshawanthpura through open door, committed theft of HP
Company Laptop, SAMSUNG mobile and Rs.1,000-00 cash.
3. After receipt of complaint the SHO of Yeshawanthpura
Police Station set the law in motion and registered the case in
crime No.194/2013 and filed FIR to the court.
4. On 18.05.2013 accused was produced before the court
with remand application, he was taken into custody and
remanded to judicial custody and enlarged on bail on
01.06.2013. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet
has been submitted. After perusing the records, cognizance
taken and this case has been registered against the accused for
the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC. Though the accused
was released on bail, he did not offer surety, hence he is being
produced from the judicial custody. The accused has been
3 C.C.No.11769/2013
given service of standing counsel Sri. UPK, Advocate. Charge
sheet copy furnished to him.
5. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused
examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked six
documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 with sub markings.
6. The statement U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was
also recorded. The accused had denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and did not choose to adduce
evidence.
7. Heard both side.
9. The following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt proves that on 08.04.2013 at about
01-00 AM, accused entered into the house
No.22, 1st Stage, 7th Cross, K.N. Extension,
Yeshawanthpura through open door,
committed theft of HP Company Laptop,
SAMSUNG mobile and Rs.1,000-00 cash and
thereby the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC?
2) What order or sentence?
10. My findings on the above points as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
11. PW-1 Pavan Kumar Nehar deposed that on
08.04.2013 when he slept in the house by kept opening the
4 C.C.No.11769/2013
balcony door, laptop, mobile phone cash of Rs.1,000-00 were
stolen from his house, he lodged complaint to the police. On
18.05.2013 police called him to the police station, where he
identified his laptop and mobile phone and he also seen the
accused.
12. PW-2 Venkatesh T. deposed that on 08.04.2013 when
he was SHO of Yeshawanthpura Police Station at about 09-40
PM, PW-1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P-1, he registered the
case in Crime No.194/2013, filed FIR to the court as per Ex.P-4
and thereafter visited the spot, drew mahazar as per Ex.P-3.
He further deposed that when he along with staff was on
patrolling duty, he came to know that one person was
wandering suspectedly near sweet shop, Metro Hotel,
Yeshawanthpura when they went there, accused was there, he
caught hold him and brought to the police station, after arrest
on enquiry he stated that he had kept the laptop and Samsung
Galaxy mobile in the house of one Iqbal at Tumkur and he
would show the same if he was taken there, as per the
voluntary statement, the accused took them to them to the
house of Iqbal and mobile and laptop were seized from the
house of Iqbal and drew mahazar as per Ex.P-6.
13. PW-3 Rajareddy deposed that on 08.04.2013 police
drew mahazar in the house of Pavan Kumar in relation to theft
of laptop and mobile.
14. PW-4 Habeeb & PW-5 Dadapeer deposed that they
have signed the Ex.P-6 about two years back in the police
station and said mahazar was conducted in relation to the theft
5 C.C.No.11769/2013
of laptop and Samsung Mobile and those were stolen by the
accused.
15. PW-6 Shiva Kumar M deposed that on 17.05.2013
when he was on patrolling duty with PSI they received
information that accused was wandering near Yeshawanthpura
Railway Station Metro Hotel Sweet Shop, they went there,
caught hold him and brought to the police station, on enquiry
he stated that on the basis of the complaint by Pavan Kumar
the Yeshawanthpura Police have registered the case against
him about a month back and he had stolen one laptop, mobile
and Rs.1,000-00 cash and he had spent Rs.1,000-00 and kept
the laptop and mobile in the house of his friend. Accordingly,
they took the accused to Tumkur and seized the mobile and
laptop from his friend.
16. Herein out of eight witnesses, the prosecution has
examined six witnesses. Among them the PW-1 is the
complainant, admittedly he had not seen the accused
committing theft. PW-2 is the I.O. who registered the case
against the accused and submitted charge sheet on completion
of investigation also deposed apprehension of the accused and
recovery of the stolen items at the instance of the accused. PW-
6 also deposed about the apprehension of the accused and
seizure of the stolen properties, but their evidence has not been
corroborated by any independent witnesses. Though PW-4 &
PW-5 are examined as a seizure mahazar witnesses and they
deposed that police have conducted mahazar in relation to the
theft of Samsung mobile and laptop and those were stolen by
the accused, they have stated that they have signed Ex.P-6
6 C.C.No.11769/2013
seizure mahazar in the police station. But, Ex.P-6 was drawn
in the house of Iqbal at Tumkur, so, the evidence of these
witnesses do not help the prosecution to prove the recovery of
the stolen properties at the instance of the accused.
17. On perusal of cumulative effect of the prosecution
evidence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:
18. For the reason stated above, I proceed to pass the
following order;
ORDER
The accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.
The accused is set at liberty and his bail and surety bonds stand cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, it is typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th of May, 2015) (HEMAVATHI) XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Pavan Kumar Nehar PW-2 : Venkatesh T PW-3 : Rajareddy 7 C.C.No.11769/2013 PW-4 : Habeeb PW-5 : Dadapeer PW-6 : Shiva Kumar M Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint
Ex.P-2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-3 : Photograph
Ex.P-4 : FIR
Ex.P-5 : Voluntary Statement of Accused
Ex.P-6 : Statement of PW-2
Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
- NIL-
(HEMAVATHI) XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.