Bangalore District Court
State By Vidyaranyapura Ps vs A1: Viji @ Ravi on 30 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL 2015
PRESENT
Ms.S.L.Ladkhan, B.A., L.L.M.,
IV A.C.M.M. Bangalore
CC No. 24965/2007
Complainant : State by Vidyaranyapura PS
V/s.
Accused : A1: Viji @ Ravi, 34 Yrs.,
S/o. Ramakrishna,
(Split up)
A2: Bhaskar, 27 Yrs.,
S/o Manimaran,
R/o C/o Ravi's house,
Subbarayan Teruvu,
Perumal Pete, Vanembadi,
Veluru Dist. Tamilnadu.
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Vidyaranyapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.136/2007 against accused No.1 & 2 alleged to have committed the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 of IPC.
2. The brief prosecution case is as follows :
The complaint came to be lodged by one Manjunatha Shetty on 13.6.2007 alleging that on the said day he had left to his work and at about 2.30 p.m. his wife locked the house and went to pick up their daughter. All of them returned home at 6.30 p.m. to find the front
-2- CC 24965/2007 door of the house being broke open and the cupboard was broke open. The articles inside the cupboard were scattered and the gold ornaments containing tiffin box was stolen. Gold necklace, gold finger rings, gold ear rings and pair of bangles were stolen from his house. As such he lodged the complaint on the same day at about 8.30 p.m. that came to be registered in the above said crime number.
The I.O. after investigation has filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2. Cognizance was taken after filing of charge sheet.
3. Accused No.1 & 2 appeared before the court and they were enlarged on bail. Provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were duly complied with. Subsequently accused No.1 remained absent, as such the case against the accused No.1 was ordered to be split up.
4. My predecessor in office has heard on charges. Charges for the offences punishable u/s.454, 380 IPC was recorded. Certificate reveals that, it was read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all has led in the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Though sufficient opportunity was given prosecution has failed to lead the evidence of CW6 to CW10 and CW12. As such their evidence was dropped.
-3- CC 24965/2007
6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence available against him was recorded. Accused has denied it and led no defense evidence.
7. Heard arguments of both the sides. Perused the materials on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused persons on 13.6.2007 in between 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. at Virupaksha pura of Vidyaranyapura broke open the lock of the house and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.454 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.2 along with the split up accused No.1 committed the theft of gold ornaments worth Rs.23,000/- and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.380 of IPC ?
3) What order ?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : In the negative.
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 & 2 : As these points are inter-related, in order to avoid repetition of discussion they are taken together for common
-4- CC 24965/2007 consideration. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.6.2007 the complainant left to his work and at about 2.30 p.m. his wife locked the house and went to pick up their daughter. All of them returned home at 6.30 p.m. to find the front door of the house being broke open and the cupboard was broke open. The articles inside the cupboard were scattered and the gold ornaments containing tiffin box was stolen. Gold necklace, gold finger rings, gold earrings and pair of bangles were stolen from his house.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has led in evidence of the complainant as PW1. PW1 has deposed about the factum of house trespass and the theft of gold articles from his house. He has also deposed about the alleged complaint as per Ex.P.1 and the police drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.2. In the cross- examination PW1 has deposed that, by the chain that the accused had put in his neck he could identify him. That police had shown the accused to him.
12. PW2 and PW3 are the spot panchas. Both of them have deposed that the police conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2.
13. PW4 is the SHO who has registered the case in the FIR Ex.P.4. PW4 also deposed to have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.2. By leading the evidence of PW2, 3 and 4 the prosecution has proved the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2. Even the complaint Ex.P.1 is proved by leading the evidence of the complainant and the I.O.
14. The prosecution has the burden to prove that the accused persons had tress passed the house of the complainant and
-5- CC 24965/2007 committed theft of gold articles. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove the seizure of the gold articles from the possession of the accused.
15. The seizure panchas one Mr.M.B.Chowdhari and Jagadish are examined as PW5 and PW6. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the gold articles from the possession of the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to prove the main link in the chain of circumstances. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the gold articles from the possession of the accused. Evidence of PW1 that he could identify the accused is also not reliable as it can be seen that accused was shown to the complainant by the police at the police station. Therefore, the evidence of the seizure panchas PW5 and PW6 is the material evidence. But unfortunately these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, under these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, my finding on the above points are in the negative.
16. Point No.3 : For having answered the above points as per the above discussion, I proceed to pass this following :
ORDER Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454, 380 of IPC.
-6- CC 24965/2007 As per the provisions of Sec.436A of Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused and surety stands cancelled after the expiry of 6 months.
Interim custody of the property is made absolute after the disposal of the split up case.
Entire records are ordered to be kept with the split up case.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of April 2015) (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW.1 : Manjunatha PW.2: Ramamurthy PW.3: Madhusudhan PW.4: A.H.Ramashetty PW.5: M.B.Chowdhary PW.6: Jagadish
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Photo
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.5 : Seizure panchanama
-7- CC 24965/2007
Ex.P.6 : Statement of PW5
Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW6
List of M.O.s marked for prosecution : NIL List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of accused : NIL (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
-8- CC 24965/2007
30.04.2015
State by Sr.APP
Accused
For judgment
ORDER
(pronounced in open court vide separate order) Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454, 380 of IPC.
As per the provisions of Sec.436A of Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused and surety stands cancelled after the expiry of 6 months.
Interim custody of the property is made absolute after the disposal of the split up case.
Entire records are ordered to be kept with the split up case.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of April 2015) (Ms. S.L.Ladkhan) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
-9- CC 24965/2007