Bangalore District Court
State By Rajagopalanagara Police vs Person In Compliance Of Section 207 Of ... on 14 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 14th day of October 2019
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane, B.Com., LL.M.,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 23950/2012
2. Date of offence : 20.8.2011
3. Complainant : State by Rajagopalanagara Police
Station
4. Accused : 1. Siddaraju S/o Nataraju,
Aged 26 years, R/at Naduvanahalli Village,
Godagere Post, Shettigere Hobli,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,
Tumkur District.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 394 IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused No.1 is
acquitted
The PSI of Rajagopalanagara Police Station has filed the final report
as against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sec. 394
IPC.
2
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 20.8.2011
at 10.15 p.m. when C.W.1 Kumaraswamy and C.W.2 Hemavathi were
going by walk at 4th cross, Doddanna Industrial Estate, Hegganahalli,
within the jurisdiction of Rajagopalanagara Police Station, accused person
by showing MACHU threatened C.W.2 and robbed her mangalya chain
and also assaulted her with MACHU and thereby committed the aforesaid
offence.
3. This is a split up case registered against the accused No.1 from the
original case in CC No. 33093/2011. Accused No.1 appeared through his
counsel and was enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers are furnished to the
accused person in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing
before charge, since no grounds were made out for his discharge, charges
were framed, read over to the accused person in the language known to
him. The accused person having understood the same, denied it to be false
and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter was set down for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused person
had cited C.W.1 to 17 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom C.W.16
has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5. The accused
3
was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material
available in the case of the prosecution. He denied the same and not
chosen to adduce evidence on his behalf. As such, the matter was posted
for arguments.
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused person. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused person has committed the offence punishable
under Sec. 394 IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1 :
8. P.W.1 is the Dy.S.P. He has stated in his evidence that on
2.9.2011 at 9 p.m. his station staff Ramesh along with others produced
accused No.1 and 2 along with Bajaj discover motor cycle and he also
seized one Nokia mobile phone, one MACHU and one golden bangle from
4
the accused by drawing seizure mahazar Ex.P.2, recorded voluntary
statement of accused as per Ex.P.3. Then he along with other staff went to
Vijaya Jewellers shop on 7.9.2011 where one golden chain was produced
and he seized the same by drawing mahazar Ex.P.4, recorded statement of
C.W.1 and 2 and then transferred the case file to Rajagopalanagara Police
Station on the point of jurisdiction.
9. Except the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution has not examined
any other witnesses. Inspite of issuance of summons to complainant and
other witnesses, they have not appeared before the Court to tender their
evidence. It is difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.1 who is police
witness without corroborating evidence from any independent witnesses.
Hence, the prayer of Sr. APP for issuance of summons is rejected as
sufficient opportunity has already been given and also in view of the fact
that the case is of the year 2012. Hence, the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
10. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
5
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 394 IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on-line, typed and computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 14th day of October 2019) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Nagesh Kumar List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Report Ex.P.2 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3 : Portion of voluntary statement Ex.P.4 : Mahazar Ex.P.5 : Photo
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.6
Judgment is pronounced in open court.
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 394 IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
7 8