Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya Police Station vs Aravinda G on 11 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 11th day of March , 2020 .
:PRESENT:
Smt. SHIRIN J ANSARI B.A.LL.B(Hon's) LLM
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No. 16528/2013
Complainant : State by Kamakshipalya police station
Bangalore.(Rep by Sr.A.P.P)
-VS-
Accused : Aravinda G
S/of late Gopal
aged 23 years
R/at No.104,
Chikkadoddamma Temple Road
Ramaiah Layout
Peenya 2nd stage,
Bangalore.
(By Sri TSS Advocate,)
1. Date of commencement of 16.11.2011
offence
2. Date of report of offence 19.11.2011
3 Arrest of the accused The accused is on bail
4. Name of the complainant G.Shivakumar Nayak
5. Date of recording of 02.01.2016
evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence 03.01.2020
7. Offences complained of Secs. 380 IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is found
not guilty
9. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP
10. Accused defence by Sri.TSS ,Advocate,
2
CC No.16528/2013
JUDGMENT
The IO of Kamakshipalya police station , Bangalore has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.380 of IPC.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
That on 16.11.2011 about 10.30 am the accused opened the door of house bearing NO.6/4 belonging to CW 1 with the help of keys kept near the window situated at Govindappa building, Sallapuradamma Layout , Sunkadakatte, entered the house with an intention of committing theft and committed theft of HP company laptop worth Rs.20,000/- belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 380 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this complaint.
On the basis of above said allegations the police have registered a case in crime No.764/2011 and forwarded FIR to this court. During the course of investigation, police have arrested the accused and got enlarged on bail. Thereafter, police have as usually conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences. 3
CC.No.16528/2013
3. On the basis of materials on record, cognizance for the aforesaid offences has been taken and issued summons to the accused. The accused faced the trial through the Advocate. Copies are furnished. The necessary charges were framed, read over and explained the same to the accused, wherein, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The incriminating evidence available against the accused has been brought to the notice of the accused by recording of 313 Cr.P.C. statement . The accused denied the same . But, did not choose to lead defence evidence.
Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
5. Based on the above facts and circumstances on record, the following points arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 16.11.2011 about 10.30 am the accused opened the door of house bearing NO.6/4 belonging to CW 1 with the help of keys kept near the window situated at Govindappa building, Sallapuradamma Layout, Sunkadakatte, entered the house with an intention of committing theft and committed theft of HP 4 CC.No.16528/2013 company laptop worth Rs.20,000/- belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of Indian Penal Code?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 - In the "Negative"
Point No.2 - As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
7.POINT No.1 :- That it is the allegation of the prosecution that on 16.11.2011 about 10.30 am the accused opened the door of house bearing NO.6/4 belonging to CW 1 with the help of keys kept near the window situated at Govindappa building, Sallapuradamma Layout , Sunkadakatte, entered the house with an intention of committing theft and committed theft of HP company laptop worth Rs.20,000/- belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 380 of Indian Penal Code.
8. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution cited 10 witnesses but examined 4 witnesses before the court. CW1 is examined as PW 1, CW2 is examined as PW2, CW8 is examined 5 CC.No.16528/2013 as PW 3 and CW10 is examined as PW4 . Absolutely, the prosecution has not brought the material witnesses before the court .
9. CW1 who is none other than the 1 st informant though deposed regarding the theft and lodging of the complaint, but , he has turned hostile with regards to drawing the panchanama . He has failed to identify the accused person and shown ignorance with regard to the contents of the spot Mahazar .
10. CW2 the pancha witness has absolutely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though this witness is subjected to cross-examination, but nothing fruitful is extracted from the mouth of this witness The prosecution has failed to prove the seizure panchanama in this case.
11. CW 8 and 10 are examined as PWs 3 and 4 . These witnesses being the IOs have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by them.
12. On perusal of the entire order sheet it is found that though proclamation was issued against Cws 3 to 7, same was not published . The prosecution has failed to secure the independent witnesses before this court. In the case like this the seizure 6 CC.No.16528/2013 panchanama plays an important role. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the seizure panchanama because both the pancha witnesses have not been examined before the court .
13. The prosecution has utterly failed to make out grounds to record conviction against the accused. Mere examination of the complainant who has not identified the accused and examination of the IOs will not prove the case of the prosecution . It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the allegation made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Absolutely, there is no satisfactory, convincing, and absolute evidence before this court to record conviction against the accused. Hence, the court has no option except to acquit the accused. Hence, in view of this I answer point No.1 in the negative.
14.POINT No.2:- In view of findings on point No.1, I find that the accused is not guilty and in the result , I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/Sec 248(1) the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sections 380 of IPC.7
CC.No.16528/2013 Bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
Accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.10,000/- towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of March , 2020).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 Shivakumar
P.W.2 Lakshmi Nayak
P.W.3 V.Chandranna
P.W.4 Naseemulla
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.3 Report
Ex.P.4 Voluntary statement
Ex.P.5 Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.6 PF
Ex.P.7 Photograph
8
CC.No.16528/2013
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence :Nil
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence:Nil
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence: NIL (SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM,Bangalore.
9 CC.No.16528/2013 10 CC.No.16528/2013