Bangalore District Court
State By H.S.R. P.S vs Mehaboob Babu on 3 September, 2022
1
SC No.1507/2016
KABC010289122016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 03 rd day of September 2022
PRESENT
SRI.R.RAVI, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXI Addl. C.C. & S.J., Bangalore.
S.C.No.1507/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by H.S.R. P.S.,
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
ACCUSED : 1. Mehaboob Babu
S/o.Late Basir
Aged about 40 years
No.2003, 7th Cross,
Near Dodda Masidi,
Thilak Nagar
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.1)
(By Sri.K.R.., Advocate)
1. Date of 14.02.2016
Commission :
of Offence
2
SC No.1507/2016
2. Date of Report :
of Offence 14.02.2016
3. Status of the :
Accused is on bail
accused
4. Name of the : Sri D.Dalegowda, PSI
complainant
5. Date of : 27.07.2022
Commencement
of evidence
6. Date of Closing : 23.08.2022
of Evidence
7. Offences : Offences punishable
complained of under Sections 399 &
402 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the : Accused No.1 is
Judge acquitted for the
offences punishable
under section 399 & 402
of IPC.
J UD GM E N T
This is a charge sheet one filed by the HSR Layout Police
Station against the accused for the offences punishable under
3
SC No.1507/2016
Sections under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that;
On 14.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., near Hospalya burial
ground compound road within the jurisdiction of the respondent
Police Station the above accused No.1 along with split-up case
accused No.2 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
with the common object of committing dacoity of the general
public who passes there by holding deadly weapons like club,
iron road, chilli power packet. In this regard FIR is registered
against the accused persons for the offences punishable
u/Sec.399 & 402 of IPC.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned VI ACMM,
Bengaluru took cognizance of the offences cited above and since
the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, then the above case was committed to this Court and
after receipt of the records, the accused No.1 & 2 were secured &
during the stage of trial since the accused No.2 remained absent
then SHO was directed to file a split-up charge sheet against him
4
SC No.1507/2016
and thereafter hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and so also
the defence counsel under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the charges for
the offences under Section 399 & 402 of IPC is framed against the
above accused No.1 and since the above accused No.1 did not
plead guilty and claims to be tried then the matter is posted for
trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the
prosecution has got examined two witnesses as PW-1 & PW-2
and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 5 and further got marked
material objects at MO-1 to 3 and after closer of the prosecution
side evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded and since the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appearing against him and did not chose
to lead any defence evidence then the matter was posted for
arguments.
5. And I have heard the arguments of both sides and
perused the entire materials placed on record and the points that
would arise for my consideration are as below;
5
SC No.1507/2016
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that
14.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m.,
near Hospalya burial ground
compound road within the
jurisdiction of the respondent
Police Station the above accused
No.1 along with split-up case
accused No.1 to 5 formed
themselves into an unlawful
assembly with the common object
of committing dacoity of the
general public who passes there
by holding deadly weapons like
Club, iron road & chilli powder
packets and thereby committed
the offences punishable
u/Sec.399, 402 of IPC ?
2. What order?
6. My answer to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:-
R E A SON S
7. POINT NO.1:- In order to prove the facts of the above
point though the prosecution got examined two witnesses as
PW-1 & PW-2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 5 and
6
SC No.1507/2016
further got marked three material objects at MO-1 to 3, the
same do not hold any water as there are lot of variations and
contradictions in the said oral and documentary evidence of the
prosecution that are placed on record. Now let me examine it.
8. First of all though the prosecution has got examined the
police official witness of CW-1/Complainant as PW-1 and
though he has deposed in his examination-in-chief evidence
that 14.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., he had received
information from informant that near Hospalya burial ground
compound road, Bengaluru about five persons formed an
unlawful assembly with the common object of committing
dacoity of the general public who passes there by holding deadly
weapons like club, iron rod, chilli powder packets & upon
receiving the said information he along with CW-2 to 5 & 7/staff
& CW-2, CW-3 panchas went to the spot and noticed that some
persons were hatching plan for committing dacoity and as such
they apprehended three accused persons & two persons
managed to escape from the along and they had conducted spot
panchanama as per Ex.P.1 & seized articles i.e., Clubs, iron rod
7
SC No.1507/2016
& chilli powder packets in the presence of panchas/CW-2 & 3
and submitted the report as per Ex.P.2 and registered FIR as
per Ex.P.3 and mentioned the above seized articles under P.F.
as per Ex.P.4 & had deputed CW-4 & 6 to trace accused No.4 &
5 and the said requisition is at Ex.P.5 and later handed over
further the case file to CW-8, the same are of no help to the
case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt as the versions of the above witness with
regard to the alleged incident & conducting of the spot
panchanama of Ex.P.1 & seizer of alleged MOs-1 to 3 from the
custody of the above accused are not at all corroborated by the
evidence of independent panch witness of CW-2 & 3.
9. And even otherwise since the said PW-1/CW-1 at page
No.3 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that 'CW-2 &
3 are from the same area and he has not at all enquired as to
what work the said CW-2 & 3 are doing and he has also not at
all taken the signatures of the said CW-2 & 3 on the materials
objects MO 1 to 3 and he has also not at all heard what the
accused were talking' & since in a ruling of ILR 2016 KAR
8
SC No.1507/2016
1042, it has been clearly held that"Criminal Procedure code,
1973 section 374(2) Appeal against judgment of conviction and
order of sentence - Re appreciation of evidence on record-
Material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution No
independent witnesses to prove the theory of recovery The
person who registered the First Information Report, himself has
investigated the crime Legality of investigation HELD, the
credibility of the investigation is doubtful as PW.3 having
registered the crime, has himself investigated the case'' then a
shadow of doubt is created with regard to the veracity of the
alleged incident one alleged against the said accused No.1.
10. Secondly though the prosecution has got examined
the CW-8/PW-2 PSI & though he has deposed in his
examination-in-chief evidence that on 23.08.2016 he had
received the case file from CW-1 for further investigation and as
the investigation was completed by CW-1 & as there was
sufficient material available against the accused then he had
filed charge sheet on 25.08.2016 against the accused is
concerned, the same is once again do not hold any water as the
9
SC No.1507/2016
version of the said PW-2 and the contents of the charge sheet
are neither corroborated by any independent witnesses nor by
any independent panch witnesses.
11. And even otherwise since the version of the above
I.O. does not prove that the alleged act of accused No.1 was
amounting to the preparation of the alleged crime & also
does not prove that the said accused No.1 along with other
accused has conceived the design of committing dacoity &
since in a ruling of 2003 Crl.L.J. 1997, it has been clearly
held that 'To constitute an offence under section 399
and 402 of IPC, some act amounting to preparation
must be proved' & in another ruling of AIR 1993 SCW
2009, it was held that 'to constitute an offence under
sections 399 and 402 of IPC, the prosecution must
show that the accused have conceived design of
committing dacoity' then the version of the above witness
is also not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
10
SC No.1507/2016
12. So in view of the discussion made above, I am of the
opinion that since the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent
corroborative evidence of complainant and other official witness
& since there are lot of variations and contradictions in the oral
version of PW-1 & 2 and since the prosecution has failed to
prove the seizer of the alleged MO's.1 to 3 from the custody of
the said accused through cogent independent eye and panch
witnesses and since in a ruling of 2006 Crl.L.J. 1775 it has
been clearly held that 'In a case under Section 399 & 402 of
IPC When no public persons were summoned to witness
the incident and when no signatures of the accused were
obtained on seizer memo & no copy there off were
furnished to any of the accused when the police did not
recover the currency notes from the accused then the same
makes the prosecution story as doubtful and the accused
are entitled for acquittal' then I am of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has once again failed to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, I
have answered the above Point No.1 in the negative.
11
SC No.1507/2016
13. POINT No.4:- In view of the above reasons, I proceed
to pass the following:-
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted
of the offences punishable under Section
399 & 402 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of
accused No.1 stands cancelled.
M.O.1 to 3 is hereby ordered to be
preserved to the trial of split up case against
the remaining absconding accused No.2 to 5.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03 rd day of September, 2022).
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
A NN E X U R E
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 Kemparaju
P.W.2 Dilip Kumar
P.W.3 Chandra
P.W.4 Shashidar.S.D.
P.W.5 Rajashekaraiah
12
SC No.1507/2016
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Panchanama
Ex.P.1(a) Signature
Ex.P.2 Requisition
Ex.P.2(a) Signature
Ex.P.3 FIR
Ex.P.3(a) Signature
Ex.P.4 P.F.
Ex.P.4(a) Signature
Ex.P.5 Requisition
Ex.P5(a) Signature
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: -
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :-
MO-1 Club
MO-2 Iron rod
MO-3 Chilli Powder Packet
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
13
SC No.1507/2016
03.09.2022
S-PP
A-1-KR
Judgment pronounced in the
open court (vide separate judgment)
with the following operative portion:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 399 & 402 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.1 stands cancelled.
M.O.1 to 3 is hereby ordered to be preserved to the trial of split up case against the remaining absconding accused No.2 to 5.
(R.RAVI) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
14SC No.1507/2016
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 02.08.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., accused being the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-21-V-2499 drove the same in rash and negligent manner on public road from Binni Mill Circle to Hunisemara Circle in Magadi Road so as to endanger human life and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused drove the said bus in rash and negligent manner by consuming alcohol knowing fully well that it may cause death of any person on the road and on account of rash and negligent driving dashed the bus against TVS Scooty pep bearing No.KA-01-EL-1515 and as a result of which the pillion rider by name Nagaraj.B.M. fell down 15 SC No.1507/2016 and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused drove the bus by consuming alcohol in contravention of provision of Motor Vehicle Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act?
6. What order?