Bangalore District Court
Jannatshari vs Abdul Ameer on 3 February, 2025
KABC030477592023
Presented on : 19.10.2023
Registered on : 19.10.2023
Decided on : 03.02.2025
Duration : 01y/03m/15days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY : TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 3rd day of February 2025
C.C.No.27204/2023
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Cubbon Park P.S
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Abdul Ameer
S/o. Mohiddin, Aged 36 years,
R/at. Ayyappa Ganji,
Devarseri Taluk, Kozhikode Rural,
Kerala.
2. Mohammed Shafi V K
S/o. Siddique, Aged 32 years,
R/at. Chayapurat, Avirlukodavalli,
Kozhikode Rural, Kerala.
3. Mohammed Farhan
S/o. Moideen Koya, Aged 22 years,
2 C.C.No.27204/2023
R/at. Madatiparmbath K post,
Baluseri Viha, Pavangad,
Kozhikode, Kollam, Kerala.
Date of Commission of offence 16.07.2022
Date of report 17.07.2022
Date of arrest 18.07.2022
Name of the complainant Jannat Sharif
Date of commencement of 20.12.2024
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 20.12.2024
Offences complained of U/Sec. 341, 342, 384, 504 , 506
R/w 34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.Naveen Kumar and
B.I. Khan., Advocates.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 03.02.2025] The P.S.I of Cubbon park police station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 342, 384, 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC .
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 16.07.2022 in between 9.30 a.m., to 10p.m., the accused in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained CW.2 near the ATM of Federal Bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru, 3 C.C.No.27204/2023 forcibly taken him in a car, wrongfully confined him, snatched his bag consisting cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, extorted money, abused him in a filthy language and threatened him to kill. On the basis of computerized typed information given by CW.1, the Cubbon park Police have registered this case in Cr.No.58/2022.
3. On 18.07.2022, the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before the court. This court remanded them to judicial custody. As per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.7432/2022, on 12.08.2022 the accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail. By obtaining anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Sessions Court, the accused No.3 appeared before the Court on 24.01.2024 and got enlarged himself on bail.
4. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 342, 384, 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC. This Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copies to the accused.
4 C.C.No.27204/2023
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 342, 384, 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The accused No.1 to 3 did not plead guilty. They claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 2 witnesses as PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 documents. As the complainant and victim have turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution, there was no incriminating evidence to record the statements of the accused. Hence, statements of accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was not recorded.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. NK Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made by the prosecution against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration: 5 C.C.No.27204/2023
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained CW.2 near the ATM of Federal Bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.341 R/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention forcibly taken CW.2 in a car, wrongfully confined him and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.342 R/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention snatched the bag of CW.2 consisting cash of Rs.10,00,000/- extorted money and thereby 6 C.C.No.27204/2023 they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.384 R/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention, abused CW.2 in a filthy language and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.504 R/w 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention threatened CW.2 to kill and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.506 R/w 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : In Negative
7 C.C.No.27204/2023
Point No.5 : In Negative
Point No.6 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 to 5:As all these points are interrelated, I take all the five points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained CW.2 near the ATM of Federal Bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru, forcibly taken him in a car, wrongfully confined him, snatched his bag consisting cash of Rs.10,00,000/- extorted money, abused him in a filthy language and threatened him to kill. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.1 and victim/CW.2 as PW.2 and got marked typed information/complaint as Ex.P.1 and portion of the statement of PW.2 as Ex.P.2.
11. CW.1/PW.1 -Jannath Sharif, in her evidence has stated that, the CW.2 is her husband and she is not acquainted with the accused. She does not know anything about this case. The accused 8 C.C.No.27204/2023 neither quarreled with her husband nor wrongfully restrained him nor wrongfully confined him nor extorted money from him nor abused him in a filthy language nor threatened him to kill. She has not lodged any complaint against the accused. Ex.P.1 complaint bears her signature. A year ago, the police took her signature to Ex.P.1 near their house. She is not aware of the contents of the same as she cannot read and write Kannada language.
12. CW.2/PW.2-Noorul Amin, in his evidence has stated that, the PW.2 is his wife and he is not acquainted with the accused. He does not know anything about this case. The accused neither quarreled with him nor wrongfully restrained him nor wrongfully confined him nor extorted money from him nor abused him in a filthy language nor threatened him to kill. He has not given any statement to the police.
13. On the basis of Ex.P.1 computerized typed information given by PW.1 on 17.07.2022, the Cubbon Park police have 9 C.C.No.27204/2023 registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. In Ex.P.1, the PW.1 had described the manner in which unknown persons abducted her husband on 17.07.2022 near the ATM of Federal bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru and how the offenders informed the same to her. She had also mentioned the phone number of the offender, who informed the incident by making phone call to her.
14. But, in the Court, the PW.1 being the complainant deposed contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1. She did not support the case of the prosecution. She did not depose in corroboration with the contents of Ex.P.1. The PW.2 being the victim did not identify the accused and he denied that, the accused wrongfully confined him and extorted money from him.
15. In this case, the main witnesses i.e., the complainant and victim have turned hostile. Though, the prosecution treated PW.1 and 2 as hostile witnesses and cross examined by Senior APP, they did not depose in support of the case of the prosecution. The 10 C.C.No.27204/2023 PW.1 and 2 deposed contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1. The PW.1 has gone to the extent of saying that, she has not given any complaint against the accused.
16. After the receipt of Ex.P.1 from PW.1, the IO registered the case, visited the spot, drawn mahazer and freezed the accounts of the accused, the PW.1 and 2 denied the entire case of the prosecution. The PW.1 and 2 in their cross examination admit that, they have compromised the matter with the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the PW.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution as, they have already compromised the case with the accused.
17. Hence, this Court rejected the prayer of senior APP in summoning other witnesses as, the purpose of the prosecution would not be served by examining them. The evidence led by PW.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. From their evidence, the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3 are not proved. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect 11 C.C.No.27204/2023 the accused with the alleged crime. The evidence led by PW.1 and 2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to hold the accused guilty of the offences.
18. In such circumstances, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained CW.2 near the ATM of Federal Bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru, forcibly taken him in a car, wrongfully confined him, snatched his bag consisting cash of Rs.10,00,000/- extorted money, abused him in a filthy language and threatened him to kill. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 5 in Negative.
Point No.6: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted from the charges of Sec.341, 342, 384, 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC.12 C.C.No.27204/2023
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 to 3 stand cancelled.
The property seized under PF No.51/2022 i.e., 3 receipts and non judicial stamp paper of the face value of Rs.100/-, Yellow colored bag seized under PF No.52[A]/2022, pen drive of Morsin company seized under PF No.59/2022 and CD seized under PF No.71/2022 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
In view of the disposal of this case, the manager of Federal bank, St. Marks road, Bengaluru is directed to defreeze A/c.No.13950200010016 of Abdul Ameer, Manager of ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd., S.R.Nagar branch, Hyderabad is directed to defreeze A/c.No.53220000428662 of Thansif Ali and A/c.No.53220000947155 of Muhammed Arshad and permit them to operate their respective accounts.
TATTANDA Digitally signed by TATTANDA
DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH
DAMAYANTI Date: 2025.02.03 17:33:03
SOMAIAH +0530
03.02.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
13 C.C.No.27204/2023
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Janath Sharif PW.2 : Noorul Amin
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Computerized typed Information/Complaint Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Portion of the statement of PW.2 LIST OF M.O's MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 01.02.2025 Transcribed on : 01.02.2025 checked on : 03.02.2025 Signed on : 03.02.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS