Bangalore District Court
State By Jnanabharathi Police vs Persons Committed Robbery Of Gold Neck ... on 17 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 17th day of February 2016
Present : Sri. J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.CC No 29047/2014
2.Date of Offence 8-10-2013
3.Complainant State by Jnanabharathi Police
Station
4.Accused 1. Chetan @ Shabdha @
Dankanachari
S/o Murthy, aged 19 years,
Residing at No.170, 5th Cross,
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-40.
2. Santhosh @ Sanna
S/o Nagaraju, aged 20 years,
residing at 2nd Cross, 3rd Main,
Kalappa Building, Kengunte
Circle, Near, Ambedkar Circle,
Jnanabharathi, Bangalore-56.
5. Offences complained U/s.392 of IPC
of
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted
2 C.C.No.29047/2014
8.Date of Order 17-2-2016
REASONS
The Inspector of Police, Jnanabharathi Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
8-10-2013 at 11-20 a.m., in front of house No.22, 7th cross,
6th block, Annapoorneshwarinagar, Bangalore within the limits
of Jnanabharathi police station, when C.W.1 Smt. Radhamma
was passing towards BDA complex on public road, these two
accused persons committed robbery of gold neck chain from
her neck and thereby committed aforesaid offence.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offence and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
persons. After hearing on charges, this court has framed the
charge for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC
and questioned the accused persons regarding the charge
made against them, they denied the charge and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution to prove its case got examined four
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked seven documents as
per Exs.P1 to P.7. Since C.Ws.2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 to 17 did not
3 C.C.No.29047/2014
turn up before this court, in the interest of speedy justice to
the accused, by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP., this
court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused Nos.1 and
2 as required U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against them and submitted
that they have no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused Nos.1 and 2 has examined four witnesses. P.W.1-
Radhamma is the victim to the alleged incident. P.W.2
Yeshwanth Kumar is the spot mahazar witness. P.W.3 Sohan
Lal is the receiver of stolen articles and P.W.4 Anand Kumar is
the police constable who arrested accused persons pertaining
to attempt to robbery case. In spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 Smt Radhamma indicating that
about two years back at 10-30 p.m., when she was proceeding
towards Annapoorneshwarinagar, two persons came from her
opposite direction in two-wheeler vehicle and stopped for some
distance from her. Out of said two persons, one person
4 C.C.No.29047/2014
approached her with some slip and asked about some address.
When she pleaded ignorance, the said person while returning
snatched her gold neck chain and escaped with another
person in the said two-wheeler vehicle. She though shouted
for help but none has come forward. Thereafter, she visited
the police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 and at
the time of lodging of complaint, she signed the spot mahazar
at Ex.P.2 in the police station.
9. The testimony of P.W.2 Yeshwanth Kumar the spot
mahazar witness indicating that on 8-10-2013 between 1-00
to 2-00 p.m., the police visited the place where the robbery of
gold neck chain of P.W.1 taken place and prepared the
mahazar. It appears, the accused persons are not disputing
the ownership of recovered golden ornament belonged to
P.W.1. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 in the matter of
robbery of her gold neck chain and the testimony of P.W.2 in
the matter of preparing of spot mahazar by the investigating
officer is only formal one and need not required detailed
consideration.
10. As per the case of the prosecution, the PSI of
Upparapet police station arrested these two accused persons
and others in connection with attempt to robbery case and
during the course of enquiry these two accused persons
confessed regarding robbery of gold neck chain of P.W.1 and
5 C.C.No.29047/2014
alienation of the same to Mataji Bankers. Accordingly, the
said PSI upon information of these two accused persons
recovered the gold neck chain of this case. Therefore, in a
case like this the offence has to be, proved in a circumstantial
evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar beyond all
reasonable doubt. It appears, in this case the prosecution to
prove seizure mahazar has examined the receiver of stolen
article i.e., P.W.3 by name Sohan Lal. In spite of giving
sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has not examined the
independent seizure mahazar witnesses and the investigating
officer who conducted the seizer.
11. Now let us consider whether the prosecution is
successful in proving the seizure mahazar beyond all
reasonable doubt. The testimony of P.W.3 Sohan Lal indicating
that on 14-12-2013 the accused brought 165 grams of gold
ornaments near his shop and pleaded money to construct the
house. Accordingly, by receiving the said ornaments, he paid a
sum of Rs.4.5 lakh to the accused. Thereafter, on 14-12-2013
to police brought, the accused persons near his shop and he
identified them as Chetan and Santhosh and stated that he
purchased gold ornaments for Rs.4.5 lakhs from them and
accordingly he handed over it to the police. Intern the police
seized the same by preparing the seizure mahazar.
6 C.C.No.29047/2014
12. As per the case of the prosecution, the investigating
officer during the course of investigation took the accused
No.1 chetan to the shop of P.W.3 for recovery of robbed chain
but as per say of P.W.3 the police brought both accused
persons for recovery. Further as per the case of the
prosecution, this P.W.3 purchased stolen ornaments from
accused No.1 Chetan only. Whereas as per say of P.W.3, he
purchased said ornaments from both accused persons.
Accordingly, the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1
sold the robbed chain of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and intern P.W.3
handed over to the investigating officer is appears to be
doubtful. In my opinion, under the above circumstances to
believe the testimony of P.W.3 examination of investigating
officer and independent seizure mahazar witnesses is
necessary. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined the
investigating officer who recovered the gold ornament
pertaining to this case and the independent seizure mahazar
witnesses. In my opinion, the testimony of P.W.3 is not trust
worthy to believe. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure mahazar
beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. P.W.4 Anand Kumar the police constable deposed
regarding arrest of these two accused persons and others
pertaining to attempt to robbery near Gandhinagar petrol
7 C.C.No.29047/2014
bunk, Bangalore. Admittedly, this case not related to attempt
to robbery case. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.4 is only
formal one and need not required detailed consideration.
14. As stated above, at the repetition of cost, in view of
my above discussion the prosecution has failed to prove the
seizure mahazar of chain of P.W.1 belonged to this case.
Even though the prosecution to prove guilt against accused
Nos.1 and 2 has examined four witnesses, the testimony of
said witnesses is not sufficient connect the accused persons
for the offence under section 392 of IPC. Moreover, P.W.1 in
her further examination has stated that she is unable to
identify the persons as the persons who robbed her gold neck
chain. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and evidence available on record, this court is of
the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove
guilt against accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for
benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 392 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C accused Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted for the above- referred offence.
8 C.C.No.29047/2014Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Office to issue direction to jail authority to release accused No.2 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of February 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXTURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, Radhamma; P.W.2, Yeshawantha Kumar P.W.3, Sone Lal P.W.4, Anand Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3 Photo
Ex.P.4 Further statement
Ex.P.5 Copy
Ex.P.6 Statement
9 C.C.No.29047/2014
Ex.P.7 Report
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.