Bangalore District Court
Hulsoor Ps vs Girish Kumar on 28 May, 2025
1 CC.No.22920/2012
KABC0C0006482012
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. C.J.M.,
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 28th day of May 2025
PRESENT: Smt. ANJALI SHARMA.V.S
B.B.A.(Hons.), LL.B.(Hons.),
X Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22920/2012
Complainant : State by, Police Sub Inspector
Halasur Police Station
V/s.
Accused : 2. Ramachandra S/o. Chennappa
Aged about 30 years,
R/at. No. 548, 1st Main, 4th Cross,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
Case against accused No. 1- Split up case
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Halasur police station has filed this charge sheet against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable u/S. 384, 511 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, accused persons called CW1 over phone asking him to show gun to purchase the 2 CC.No.22920/2012 same. Accordingly CW1 asked the accused to come on 15/04/2012 to Hassan where he showed trial of the gun to the accused persons. On 05/06/2016 and 06/06/2012 accused persons again visited the said shop at Hassan to look at the gun. On 11/06/2012 at about 5.00 pm, accused persons came to the firearms shop at 'the Estate building', Dickinson Road, Bengaluru and told CW1 that he did not have any license to deal in firearms and as such demanded for Rs. 1.00 Crore failing which they would go to TV9 and NDTV and defame them. After some time they demanded CW1 to pay Rs. 50.00 lakhs instead of Rs.1 Crore. On 13/06/2012, accused No.1 again threatened CW1 stating that, if he failed to give the money, he would leak the recording made on a pen camera to the media and as such attempted to extort money from CW1 and thereby accused No. 1 & 2 committed offences punishable under section 384, 511 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the FIS lodged by the informant, case was registered against the accused No.1 & 2 in Halasur P.S., Cr.No.183/2012 and FIR was submitted to the court. On 3 CC.No.22920/2012 completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused No.1 & 2. Accused No.1 & 2 appeared before the court through their counsel and they are enlarged on bail. Copy of charge-sheet was furnished to the accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused No.1 & 2 for the alleged offences. The accused No.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4, and got marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P3. During the course of trial, case against accused No. 1 ordered to split up. The statement of the accused No.2 was recorded u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating materials available against him. He did not lead evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused No. 2 and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for determination: 4 CC.No.22920/2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that, on 11/06/2012 at about 5.00 pm, accused persons came to the firearms shop of CW1 at 'the Estate building', Dickinson Road, Bengaluru and told CW1 that he did not have any license to deal in firearms and as such demanded for Rs. 1.00 Crore failing which they would go to TV9 and NDTV, and defame him and again demanded CW1 to pay Rs. 50.00 lakhs instead of Rs.1 Crore and on 13/06/2012, accused No.1 again threatened CW1 stating that, if he failed to give the money, he would leak the recording made on a pen camera to the media and as such attempted to extort money from CW1 and thereby the accused No. 1 along with accused No. 2 committed an offence punishable under Section 384, 511 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. The above points are answered in the following manner;
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the prosecution that, accused persons visited the firearms shop of CW1 at Dickinson Road and tried to scare him by stating that they would go to media channel stating that, he had no license to deal in firearms and attempted to extort money from PW2.
5 CC.No.22920/2012
10. PW2, Ismail Shariff deposed that, he deals with Arms and Ammunition since 1998 and he has obtained license from the Home Department of Karnataka State. He deposed that, on 11/06/2012, accused No. 2 along with accused No. 1 came to the shop pretending to be from TV9 and told that, he was doing illegal business of weapons and that they had recorded the same, which he will produce the same before media and publish it in newspaper. He also told that, accused No.2 along with accused No.1 had been coming to his shop for the past one month and he negotiated with him to purchase weapons. Accused also demanded Rs. 1.00 crore and showed him the recording made by accused. However, PW2 refused to give amount and filed this complaint as per Ex.P1. On the next date police visited the shop and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3. He produced the xerox copies of Form No. 11 and 12. He had the license from the Home Department. He identified accused No. 2 before the court.
11. The evidence of PW2 was dropped since he could not be secured for cross-examination.
6 CC.No.22920/2012
12. PW3, Naveen Kumar deposed that, he is acquainted with PW1. From 2009 he used to work in Susheel Dhyan Chand's Firearms and Ammunition shop. In 2012, accused had come to see guns in the said shop. At that time accused threatened PW2 by questioning how he was showing guns at a shop that did not belong to him. In this regard the police came and took the statement and signatures on the mahazar.
13. In the cross-examination of PW3 he deposed that, Ex.P3 spot mahazar was read out to him. The said document was written inside their shop and at that time, PW2, his colleague Dominic and two police men were present. PW2 had not kept his gun in their shop. He admitted that, he did not hear or listen to the conversion between PW2 and accused persons.
14. PW4 Chandra deposed that, he is the facility manager of 'The Estate building' from 2010. PW2 has a Firearms shop in the said building. About 10 years back, when he was on rounds duty, he saw two persons talking loudly to PW2. Next day when he enquired about the commotion with PW2, he told that, accused threatened to go to the media, if PW2 did not give them 7 CC.No.22920/2012 money. Thereafter, accused demanded for Rs. 50.00 lakhs from PW1. He got to know that the two persons were Girish and accused before the court. PW4 further deposed that, accused had demanded money from PW2 as he was selling imported guns without any license. It was told that accused recorded the same in a pen camera. Accused threatened to ruin the business if he fails to give the money.
15. PW4 was treated as partly hostile to elicit that the accused persons had come in the evening on the date of incident and the next day PW2 had narrated what had happened. He denied that, he can identify the accused persons.
16. In his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused he deposed that, he does not know what is written in his statement. However the same was read out to him by the police. Two days after the incident, the police called him to the station. He has 24 hour job in the said building. The shop was being run by PW2 and it is owner is one Sushil. He deposed that, he is well acquainted with PW2. When the accused persons were talking to PW2 in loud voice, he and security guard did not go up 8 CC.No.22920/2012 to them to enquire. At the time of the incident he or security guard did not call the police. He has given a statement that PW2 used to run the firearms shop of Sushil. Nothing else was elicited in his cross-examination.
17. PW1, B. Ramamurthy deposed that, on 12/06/2012 he received the complaint from PW2 and registered the case. On the next day he visited to the scene of occurrence and conducted mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. He deputed his staff to apprehend accused and thereafter recorded the statements of CW4 & CW5. He recorded the further statement of PW2 and collected the xerox copy of license of Firearms Shop Form No. 11 & 12. On 09/07/2012 accused appeared before him after obtaining necessary bail and accused were released after giving bail bond. Thereafter, he filed the charge sheet against accused.
18. In the cross-examination of PW1 he deposed that, there is no date mentioned in the Ex.P1 complaint, but he received the same on 12/06/2012. He did not verify the CCTV footage at the place of incident. He also did not enquire the owner or the security or the Manager about the CCTV. He has not produced 9 CC.No.22920/2012 any documents to show that, PW2 as his shop at the said premises. He did not record the statements of security persons as it was not required for this case. The two witnesses shown in the charge-sheet are the facility Manager, CW4 and parking in charge, CW5. He denied that, CW5 works in the shop of PW2. He inquired PW3 who works in the said shop. He has not produced shop license before the court. He did not enquire about the transaction between PW2 and the accused. He admitted that, PW2 is not the owner of the said shop. He denied all other suggestions.
19. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is the allegation of the prosecution that accused persons came to the Arms and ammunitions shop of PW2 and attempted to extort money from him by threatening that they would go to the media and inform that he does not have the license to run the business and leak the video recorded during trial shown by him.
20. PW2, the victim/eye witness was examined in this case. However, as he did not tender himself for cross- examination, his evidence was discarded. PW3 is the eye witness 10 CC.No.22920/2012 and mahazar witness. Though PW3 deposed that in 2012, he saw accused threaten PW2 by questioning how he was showing guns at a shop that did not belong to him, he admitted in his cross examination that, he did not hear or listen to the conversion between PW2 and accused persons. On the other hand, PW4, who is a hearsay witness, merely saw two persons visit the shop of PW2. He later got to know from PW2 that accused threatened to go to the media, if PW2 did not give them money. Therefore, both the evidence of PW3 and 4 are dependent on the evidence of PW2, who told them about the alleged conversation between the accused and PW2. However, PW2 himself has not appeared before this court to tender himself for cross-examination. Hence, there is no direct eye witness to account for the alleged incident.
21. Further, there is no identification of the accused. PW4 denied that he saw the accused in the shop of PW2 on the day of the alleged incident. The Investigating officer has also not produced the CCTV footage to show that the accused visited the 11 CC.No.22920/2012 said firearms shop. Also, no document is produced to show that PW2 has a firearms shop.
22. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After considering the materials on record, if there is a possibility of two circumstances, the one which is favourable to the accused is to be considered. If any doubt arises, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. The facts and circumstances revealing from the evidence by itself are sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. By considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution is not able to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
23. POINT NO.2: For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed;
ORDER
Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the
accused no.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 384, 511 of IPC.
12 CC.No.22920/2012
Bail bond of accused no.2 and surety stands canceled.
Office to retain the file till the disposal of split up case.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court today, 28/05/2025) Digitally signed by ANJALI V S ANJALI V S SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.24 13:36:34 +0530 (ANJALI SHARMA.V.S) X A.C.J.M.,BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W-1 : B.Ramamurthy P.W-2 : Ismail Shariff P.W-3 : Naveen Kumar P.W-4 : Chandra
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex.P1 : FIS
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P2 : FIR
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P3 : Mahazar
Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P3(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P3(c) : Signature of PW.3
13 CC.No.22920/2012
List of witnesses examined for accused:
::NIL::
List of documents marked for accused:
::NIL::
List of material objects marked:
ANJALI V S Digitally signed by ANJALI V S SHARMA ::NIL:: SHARMA Date: 2025.06.24 13:36:40 +0530 (ANJALI SHARMA.V.S) X A.C.J.M., BENGALURU.