Bangalore District Court
Yeshwanthapura Police Station vs Ganesh on 1 March, 2025
KABC030707762022
Presented on : 02-09-2022
Registered on : 02-09-2022
Decided on : 01-03-2025
Duration : 2 years, 5 months, 29 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 01st Day of March, 2025
C.C. No.28193/2022
(Crime No.166/2022)
State by Yeshwanthpura Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Ganesh,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Sri Tulasiram,
R/at Jhoshi Village, Balki
Taluk, Bidra. .....Accused
(Represented By Sri Dileep Kumar, Advocate)
KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022
1. Date of commission of 26-05-2022
offence
2. Date of FIR 26-05-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 22-06-2022
4. Name of Complainant Sri Syed Noorulla
5. Offences complained of Under Section 384, 448 of
IPC
6. Date of framing of 19-08-2023
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 17-11-2023
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 01-03-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 01-03-2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
2
KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Yeshwanthpura Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 384, 448 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 26-05-2022 at 11 a.m., at house No.854, II Main, 10th Cross, Divanarapalya, Gokul Layout within the limits of Yeshwanthpura PS, the accused under the guise of beggar wearing Muslim dress trespassed into the house of CW1 Sri Syed Noorulla and extorted Rs.500/- from the purse of CW5 forcibly.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by Sri Syed Noorulla, CW8 Sri Raju.C., PSI of Yeshwanthpura Police Station registered Crime No.166/2022 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 384, 448 of IPC, prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: After registration of FIR, he drawn spot mahazar on 26-05-2022, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, collected the documents and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence.
3 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/20225. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
6. At pe-summoning stage, the accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 01-06-2022.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec 384, 448 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 8 witnesses, examined 2 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents. Perused the nature of offences and material witnesses namely PW1 and PW2 did not support the prosecution case and hence the issuance of witness summons to other witnesses is dispensed by the order dated 25-02-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: There are no incriminating evidence against 4 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022 the accused found from the evidence of prosecution thereby the recording of statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 26-05-2022 at 11 a.m., at house No.854, 2nd Main, 10th Cross, Divanarapalya, Gokul Layout within the limits of Yeshwanthpura PS, the accused under the guise of beggar wearing Muslim dress trespassed into the house of CW1 namely Syed Noorulla thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.448 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, time and place, the accused extorted Rs.500/- from CW5's 5 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022 purse forcibly thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.384 of IPC?.
3. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1 & 2 : These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witness which is as follows:
I. CW1 by name Sri Syed Noorulla being informant examined as PW1 identified his signatures on Ex.P1 (complaint) and Ex.P2 (Spot Mahazar) as Ex.P1(1) and 2(a) and deposed that, the accused neither trespassed into his house nor extorted any money from him. When he went to police station, the police obtained his signatures on the said documents.6 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022
He pleaded ignorance about the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answer has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case.
II. CW5 by name Smt. Harshiya Fathima, examined as PW2 who pleaded ignorance about the prosecution case. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross examined this witness by treating her as hostile witness but no favorable answer has been elicited from her to support the prosecution case. Her denial statement given before police is marked as per Ex.P3.
15. In this case the PW1 and PW2 being material witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Though the prosecution has cross-examined these witnesses by treating as hostile witnesses, no favorable evidence have been elicited to support the prosecution case and they deposed falsely to help the accused. This court is of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined by the prosecution and they supported the prosecution case that would not helpful as PW1 and PW2 themselves does not support the prosecution case. This court has dispensed with the examination of other witnesses which could be only formal in nature and hence taken the prosecution evidence as closed.
7 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/202216. It is a settled law that in order to bring home guilt of accused, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt however in the case on hand, absolutely there are no materials to connect the accused in the commission of alleged offences as discussed above. The prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused is guilt of alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
17. Point No.3:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 384, 448 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
8 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal period, the properties shown under PF No.86/2022 being worthless shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 01 st day of March, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Syed Noorulla Informant PW2: Smt. Harshiya Fathima Witness to incident 9 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022 Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar PW1 Ex.P3: Statement of PW2 PW2
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.10 KABC030707762022 CC 28193/2022
01-03-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 384, 448 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal period, the properties shown under PF No.86/2022 being worthless shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
11