Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Basavanagudi P.S vs No. 2 Along With A­1 Came On Yamaha Motor ... on 3 January, 2022

                                1

                                                       C.C.No.14753/2018
  IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.

              Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2022.

              Present: Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
                       XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.

                          C.C. No.14753/2018

                  JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,

1. Complainant:              State by Basavanagudi P.S.

                             V/S

2. Accused:                  A2 RAVIKUMAR
                             S/o PUTTASWAMY,
                             AGED 24 YEARS,
                             R/O RAJAMMA RENTAL HOUSE,
                             BESIDE R.K. APARTMENT,KA
                             NEAR YADIYURU CIRCLE,
                             BASAVANAGUDI,
                             BANGALORE CITY.

3.Date of offence:           24­01­2015

4. Offences complained of:   U/s.392 of IPC.

5. Plea:                     A­2 pleaded not guilty.

6. Final Order:              Accused No.1 is Acquitted.

7. Date of Order:            03­01­2022.

                             *****
                                  2

                                                       C.C.No.14753/2018
     The Police­Inspector, Basavanagudi Police Station, Bangalore

has filed this split up charge sheet against the accused No. 2 for the

offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.

     2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

     That on 24­01­2015 at about 8­00 a.m.,within the limits of

Basavanagudi P.S. CW­1 was standing in front of Karnataka Bank

Road at Nettakallappa circle, S.C.Road, Basavanagudi at that time, the

accused No. 2 along with      A­1 came on Yamaha motor Bike and

robbed the gold chain weighing 15 gms., from the neck of CW­1 and

portion of the chain sold to the by passers thereby the accused persons

have committed the aforesaid offences.

     3. The accused No.2 was enlarged on bail. On receipt of charge

sheet, my predecessor in the office has took the cognizance of the

alleged offences and furnished copy of the prosecution papers to the

accused persons.   Charge for the offence P/U/S.392       of IPC., was

framed, read over and explained to the accused No.2. The accused

No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

     4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined two

witnesses as PW­1 and PW­2 and got marked four documents at Ex.P1
                                  3

                                                     C.C.No.14753/2018
to P4. The statement of accused No.2 as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.

is recorded. In which, accused No.2 denied all the incriminating

circumstances appeared against him. The accused No.2 submits no

defence evidence and the matter was posted for arguments.

     5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the

prosecution and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the

materials available on record.

     6. In order to prove the guilty of the accused, the prosectution

has examined PW­1 Shashidhar, C.P.I., Gowribidanoor has deposed in

his evidence that he took up further investigation of this case from

CW­14, on 04­08­2015 when he was in station received information

about chain snatching, he went to the spot along with CW 8,9 and 13

at KR Road Tata Farma, one person was roaming in suspicious

manner, he caught hold of him, on enquiry he revealed name as Shivu

S/o Ramanna, 28      years ie. the accused. He    further stated that

accused said that were present for committing chain snatching, he

took accused No.1 to the police station, based on accused voluntary

statement, he led them to his house along with panchas at H.No.113,

7th B Cross, Sastry nagar, Bangalore and from the almirah accused
                                   4

                                                        C.C.No.14753/2018
No.1 produced two gold chain, the stolen chain were seized under

seizure Panchanama as per Ex.P1, he recorded statement of CW 8, 9

and 13 and he produced accused No.1 before the court on 05­08­

2015, after completion of the investigation, the accused No.2 was

absconded, he submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 and

he identified him along with photo containing gold chain.

      7. The PW­2 Kavana deposed in her evidence that about 6 years

back she was standing in front of Bank at Netkallappa road, two

persons came and snatched gold chain wg. 15 gms. from her neck and

fled away on bike, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P3. After few days

policed called her to police station by stating that her chain was traced

out, she went to the police station, and get her chain from the police, ,

but the police dis not showed the accused in the police station and she

did not given any further statement before the police. Even the PW­2

did not identified the accused before the court. At this stage, the

Sr.APP has sought permission to treat this witness as hostile and to

cross examine,    during the cross examination the contents of the

further statement was suggested to the the PW­2, for which, she
                                   5

                                                        C.C.No.14753/2018
denied the same and nothing worth has been elicited. The said

statement is marked as per Ex.P5.

      8. It is well settled principle of law that in order to held a

person guilty for a offence punishable under section 392 of IPC., the

chain link must be unbroken. The IO who interrogated the accused

persons during his interrogation, the accused No.1 has admitted to the

commission of crime and based on his statement the IO recovered

gold chain from the possession of accused No.1. The confessional

statement itself hit by the provisions of Section 25 of Indian evidence

Act. If the stolen articles are recovered from the accused, then only

the said part of confessional statement in respect of recovery of stolen

articles is admissible in evidence. I have carefully perused the records,

the case of the prosecution is that, the accused No. 2 along with Split

up A­1 have robbed the gold chain weighing 15 gms., from the neck

of CW­1. As per the information given by the accused No.1 the said

gold chain was recovered from the accused No.1 under the seizer

Panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW­4 and 5. Of course

the PW­1 the IO has deposed about the recovery of the gold chain, but

none of the Panchas are examined before the court. The evidence of
                                   6

                                                        C.C.No.14753/2018
IO is not supported by any other independent witness. The

prosecution failed to prove the seizer Panchanama in accordance with

law. Therefore, the confessional statements of the accused are not

admissible in evidence.

      9. The PW­2 is the victim, she turned hostile towards the case of

prosecution. In the cross examination PW­1 has denied the

suggestions of learned Sr.APP and pleaded his ignorance about the

contents of his statement given before the IO. Even the PW­1 did not

identified the accused. When the victim herself turned hostile

examination of other witness will not serve any purpose Hence, the

request of Sr.APP is rejected and CW­2 to 14 are dropped. In criminal

case guilt of the accused shall be proved beyond reasonable doubt and

in this instant case the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of

stolen article beyond reasonable doubt. The available evidence on

record are not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused No.2 for the

offence punishable U/s.392 of I.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution fails to

prove the guilty of the accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore,   the accused No.2 is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
                                           7

                                                                      C.C.No.14753/2018
                                        ORDER

Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.

The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 03­01­2022) ( B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW­1 : Shashidhar C.P.I. PW­2 : Kavana LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1     :          Panchaname
Ex.P.1(a) :           Signature of PW­1
Ex.P.2    :           Complaint
                                8

                                                 C.C.No.14753/2018
Ex.P.2a   :     Signature of the witness
Ex.P.3    :     Spot mahazar
Ex.P.3a   :     Signature of the witness.
Ex.P.4    :     Spot Panchaname
Ex.P.4a   :     Signature

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:

NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .

NIL XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE.

C.C.No.14753/2018 03­01­2022.

Judgment.

Judgment pronounced in the Open court (vide separately).

ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.

The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

XXXVII ACMM.,B'lore.