Bangalore District Court
Koramangala P S vs A3 Anthony Theresa Alias Anthony on 20 May, 2025
KABC010278502024
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
S.C.No.1331/2024
Complainant: State by Koramangala Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused: 1. Karthik @ Peepa ....Split up
2. Salman Khan @ Salman
......S.C.No.1128/2022
3. Anthony Teresa @ Anthony,
S/o Anand Raj,
Aged about 19 years,
R/in front of Indira Canteen
L.R. Nagar, Adugodi,
Bengaluru.
4. Vinod ......S.C.No.1128/2022
5. John Peeter @ Peeter ...Split up
(By Sri. GSB, Advocate)
Date of Commencement of 06.03.2020
offence:
Date of report of offence: 60.03.2020
Name of complainant: Sri. Siddappa. G. PSI.
2 S.C.No.1331/2024
Date of recording of 03.05.2025
evidence:
Date of closing of evidence: 04.10.2023
Offence complained of U/s.399 and 402 of IPC
Opinion of the judge Acquittal
*****
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Koramangala Police station against accused for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case:
The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2020 night at about 9.10 pm., the while the complainant was on patrolling duty near Mestri Palya, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, complainant received credible information from the informant that some 4-5 persons in a vacant place near Mestripalya Tank, situated at 4th Block, Koramangala, having possessed with deadly weapons in their hands, were hatching plan to commit dacoity of valuable and cash from the persons moving on that road by putting them under threat of life. On the basis of the said information the complainant summoned the two independent witnesses and requested them to act as panchas and both panchas agreed to act as panchas and accordingly, the complainant along with his staff CW2 to CW6 went to the spot and they stopped the vehicle at some distance from the spot and by observing the assailants from a little distance they found that these assailants were holding deadly weapons in their hands and they were talking among themselves that, they would commit dacoity of the passers by of their cash, gold and mobile phones. After confirming this 3 S.C.No.1331/2024 aspect, the complainant along with his staff raided the spot and apprehended the accused persons and conducted the mahazar in presence of panchas and thereafter the complainant has drawn the panchanama and seized the deadly weapons from the possession of the accused No.1 to 5 and brought them to the police station and produced them before the investigating officer and lodged the complaint. Based on the said complaint the police have registered the case in Cr.No.71/2020 for offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 IPC.
3. The police after completion of the investigation have submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 in C.C.No.6034/2020. The trial Court took the cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused No.3 has committed the said case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru. Since the accused No.3 was absconding, the case against him was split up. By securing the presence of accused No.2 and 4, the trial Court has committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the case has been made over to this court for trial. This Court framed the charges and read over to the accused No.3 for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC. However, the accused No.3 pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in support of their case, has totally cited 11 witnesses as CWs.1 to 11. However, the prosecution was able to secure and examine only 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 and P3 and adopted the MOs.1 to 5 marked in S.C.No.1128/2022. The prosecution was able to secure and examine only 3 witnesses CW1, CW2 and CW11. In spite of issuance 4 S.C.No.1331/2024 of proclamation against CWs.7 to 10, the Police have not taken the proclamation issued, hence they are dropped. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up C.Ws.3 to 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused No.3 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.3 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him which was read over and explained him, however he has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and he has not chosen to lead any defense evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my consideration in both cases are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06.03.2020 night at about 9.10 pm., within the limits of Koramangala police station, at vacant place near Mestripalya Tank, situated at 4th Block, Koramangala, the accused No.3 along with accused No.3 along with other accused persons by holding deadly weapons were making preparations to commit dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.399 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.3 along with other accused persons, assembled at the said spot in order to rob the by-passers and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.402 of IPC?
3. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are:
Points No.1 & 2: In the negative, 5 S.C.No.1331/2024 Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Points No.1 & 2: These points are interconnected with each other, hence for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these points together for discussion and answer.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2020 night at about 9.10 pm., the while the complainant was on patrolling duty near Mestri Palya, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, he received credible information from the informant that some 4-5 persons in a vacant place near Mestripalya Tank, situated at 4th Block, Koramangala, having possessed with deadly weapons in their hands, were hatching plan to commit dacoity of valuable and cash from the persons moving on that road by putting them under threat of life. On the basis of the said information the complainant summoned the two independent witnesses and requested them to act as panchas and both panchas agreed to act as panchas and accordingly, the complainant along with his staff CW2 to CW6 went to the spot and they stopped the vehicle at some distance from the spot and by observing the assailants from a little distance they found that these assailants were holding deadly weapons in their hands and they were talking among themselves that, they would commit dacoity of the passers by of their cash, gold and mobile phones. After confirming this aspect, the complainant along with his staff raided the spot and apprehended the accused persons and conducted the mahazar in presence of panchas and thereafter the complainant has drawn the panchanama and seized the deadly weapons from the possession of the accused No.1 to 5 and brought them to the police station and produced them before the investigating 6 S.C.No.1331/2024 officer and lodged the complaint. Based on the said complain, the Police have registered the case in Cr.No.71/2020 for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
9. CW1- Siddappa is examined as P.W.1 wherein he has deposed that from 15.08.2018 to 11.07.2022 he worked as Police Sub-Inspector in Koramangala police station. P.W.1 has deposed that on 06.03.2020, evening their crime personnels -CW2 to CW6 were patrol within the limits of police station in a government vehicle bearing No.KA-01/G- 4555 and when they came Koramangala 4th Block, 16th Main Road near lake at 9.20 pm., while patrolling, 4-5 assailants were sitting suspiciously near the lake and at that time when he and his staff went near, they saw them and tried to run away and at that time their staff surrounded and caught hold of them, he and CW6 caught hold of Karthik @ Peepa and he possessed one knife, CW2 caught hold of Salman and he possessed rod, CW4 caught hold of Anthony Teras and he possessed long, CW5 caught hold of Vinod and he possessed one rod, CW3 caught hold of John Peter and he possessed chilly powder packet and brought CW7 and CW8 when they seized the said articles at the time and then interrogated the said accused and told that they obstruct the passers-by at night and extort money from them and thereafter prepared all the report and sent it to the station through CW2 and later CW11 has registered a FIR and came to the incident place night at 12.20 pm., and CW11 came to the incident place along with panchas CW9 and CW10 and seized the articles in presence of panchas CW7 to CW10 and the said panchanama was conducted from night at 12.20 to 14.45 hours and later CW11 went to the police station along with the accused and the seized articles and he can identify the accused who were present and the incident place and 7 S.C.No.1331/2024 seized articles. P.W.1 has identified the said material objects and the said material objects were already marked as MO.1 to MO.5. P.W.1 has identified the accused No.3 before the Court.
10. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by accused No.3 counsel wherein P.W.1 has admitted that he has came to the station on 06.03.2020 morning at about 8.00 - 8.15 am. P.W.1 has admitted that they have made entries daily in the dairy about their duty and he cannot say exactly where they patrolled. P.W.1 has admitted that they made an entry in the diary about the said patrol duty and the said diary is not given to CW11. P.W.1 has admitted that on 06.03.2020, he saw the accused present at the place and they have been on patrol since evening at about 6.00 pm., and he does not remember who was the SHO of the station when they left the station and there is no entry in his report that the accused persons were sitting suspiciously and the accused seeing them had ran away about 50 meters and he cannot tell that who arrested which accused first. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that the accused have not given information before him about they hatching plan for committing robbery and he has not given any written notice to CW7 and CW8 and he had no difficulty in giving notice to CW7 and CW8 and he has written himself the said Ex.P1 - report, before the arrival of CW11, they searched the body of the accused persons and recovered the weapons and they have not conducted their personal body search before they search the body of the accused. P.W.1 has admitted that generally, MO.2 and MO.4 are found in construction of building places. P.W.1 has admitted that there is no entry his report and mahazar about length and width of MO.2 and MO.4. P.W.1 has admitted that there was no difficulty in measuring such material objects. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that none of 8 S.C.No.1331/2024 the accused were present at the said incident place and no material objects were with them. P.W.1 has admitted that he and their staff have not signed the said Ex.P3- panchanama. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that he and their staff have not signed on Ex.P3- panchanama because they were not present in the said place. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that he has not visited any incident place and have not arrested any of the accused and have not recovered any weapons from them even though he is deposing falsely to help CW11. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that he is seeing the accused No.2 before the court for the first time. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and the said case even though giving false report against him and deposing falsely.
11. CW2- G. Ravindra Kumar is examined as PW2 wherein PW2 has deposed that from May 2019 to June 2023 he worked as Assistant Police Inspector in Koramangala police station. PW2 has deposed that on 06.03.2020 while he was on patrolling duty with CW1 and CW3 to CW6 in night at 9.20 pm., some 4-5 persons were sitting suspiciously at vacant place near Mestripalya lake, Koramangala 4 th Block and when they went near them, they saw them and tried to escape and then they brought panchas CW7 and CW8 and told them the information and after ascertaining that the said persons were hatching plan to commit dacoity, they surrounded them and asked their name and address and CW1 and CW6 caught hold of Karthik @ Peepa and he possessed one knife, PW2 caught hold of Salman and he possessed rod, CW4 caught hold of Anthony Teras and he possessed long, CW5 caught hold of Vinod and he possessed one rod, CW3 caught hold of John Peter and he possessed chilly powder packet and after interrogating the accused persons, CW1 wrote a 9 S.C.No.1331/2024 complaint, which he took to the police station and gave to CW11 and then CW11 brought two panchas CW9 and CW10 and went with them to the said incident place and seized the weapons from the accused persons in presence of panchas and the said panchanama was conducted from 12.20 am., to 1.45 am. PW2 has deposed that he can identify the accused who were present at the time of incident place and the seized articles. PW2 has identified the said material objects and they were already marked as MO.1 to MO.5. PW2 has identified the accused No.3 who is present before the Court.
12. PW2 has been cross-examined by the accused counsel wherein PW2 has admitted that on 06.03.2020 he was on duty in the crime branch and he himself has witnessed the incident and CW1 has given notice to panchas CW7 and CW8. PW2 has denied the suggestion that they have gone to the incident place in uniform and PW2 has stated that CW1 was only in uniform and they went to the spot in night at 9.20 pm, and he reported for duty on 06.03.2020 at 9.00 am., and he cannot exactly say that which places he was on patrol duty on 06.03.2020 morning from 9.00 to night at 9.20 pm., and the accused ran about 20- 25 meters away from them after seeing them and he himself has arrested the said accused first and they have done their personal body search and the said MO.2- rod was with accused No.2. PW2 has admitted that he has not stated in his statement that how many feet was the said MO.2. PW2 has admitted that generally MO.2 can be found in construction of houses. PW2 has denied the suggestion that MO.1 to MO.5 were not with any of the accused and no accused were present in the said incident place and they have not hatching plan to commit any crime. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has not gone to any place on 06.03.2020 and has 10 S.C.No.1331/2024 not arrested any of the accused persons and CW1 has not written any complaint and he has not taken the same and given it to CW11 at the station. PW2 has denied the suggestion that CW11 has not visited any incident place and has not conducted any amanath panchanama in presence of panchas and he has not signed Ex.P3 - panchanama and he was not present at any incident place and no panchanama was conducted in his presence because he has not signed on the panchanama. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he cannot tell exactly who wrote the said Ex.P3 - panchanama and he has not visited any incident place and has not arrested any of the accused even though he has not recovered any weapons from them he is deposing falsely to help CW11. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has seen the accused No.2 before the Court for the first time and there is no connection between the accused and the said case even though he is deposing falsely against them.
13. CW11- Santhosh is examined as P.W.3 and he has deposed that from January, 2020 to January 2023 he worked as Police Sub- Inspector in Koramangala police station. P.W.3 has deposed that on 06.03.2020 night at about 23.40 hours, he received the report sent by CW1 -Siddappa along with CW2- Ravindra Kumar and registered a case in Cr.No.71/2020 u/s.399, 402 of IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court. P.W.3 has identified his signature in the said complaint at Ex.P1. P.W.3 has identified FIR who has registered the case and the said FIR is marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter the panchas CW9 and CW10 were called to the police station through staff and told them the information as they received and thereafter when they went to the spot along with CW2, CW9 and CW10 near Mestripalya, 4 th Block and CW1 and CW3 to CW8 were there in the spot and thereafter told the 11 S.C.No.1331/2024 information to panchas and ask for the name and address of the accused persons held by CW1 and CW3 to CW8 and the name of the accused person held by CW6 is Karthik and he possessed one iron knife and the name of the accused person held by CW7 is Salman Khan and he possessed one iron rod and name of the accused person held by CW4 is Anthony Therasa and he possessed one long and name of the accused person held by CW5 is Vinod and he possessed one iron rod and the name of the accused person held by CW3 is John Peter and he possessed one chilly powder packet and he has seized the said articles from night 12.20 to 1.45 p.m. in presence of panchas and he has wrapped the said articles in a white cloth and sealed it as STD. P.W.3 has identified the said panchanama and the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P3 and he can identify the said seized articles and the said seized articles i.e., M.Os.1 to 5, which are marked in S.C.No.1128/22022. The slip affixed on the MO.1 to MO.5 bears his signature and he has subjected the material objects in station PF No.49/2020 and thereafter he has arrested the accused and followed the arrest procedure. P.W.3 has deposed that he has obtained the statements CW2 to CW10 on 07.03.2020 and on the same day he has obtained the voluntary statements of the accused persons. Thereafter, since there was sufficient evidence against the accused, he has submitted the charge sheet to the Court against the accused persons and he has identified the accused No.3 who is present before the Court.
14. P.W.3 has been cross-examined by the accused counsel, wherein P.W.3 has admitted that he has written the said Ex.P3- amanath panchanama and it was written by the writer Shashi and he did not obtain the signature of the person who wrote the said Ex.P3 12 S.C.No.1331/2024 and he did not make him as a witness and he did not give any written notice to panchas and there was no difficulty for him to give notice to the panchas and before he went to the said spot, CW1 had already seized the articles from the accused and he cannot tell that which accused had possessed the which of the weapon. P.W.3 has admitted that the shape and length of the seized articles and their details are not entered in Ex.P3- mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he has prepared Ex.P3- amanath panchanama in the station. P.W.3 has admitted that CW1 is Sub-Inspector working in their station and CW2 to CW6 are the staff who working under them in their station. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that there were no accused in the said incident place and no articles were in their possession. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he registered a false case on the basis of the statement of CW1 and prepared a false panchanama. P.W.3 has admitted that the slip affixed to the articles are typed slips. He has denied the suggestion that the slips pasted on the material objects and the mahazar were done in the station. P.W.3 has admitted that MO.1 to MO.5 are generally available in the market. He has denied the suggestion that he did not record the voluntary statements of any of the accused and he has created them for the purpose of the said case and CW2 to CW10 have not given any statement before him, but he created them for the purpose of the case. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and the said case even though he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused to help CW1 and he is deposing falsely.
15. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons have examined P.Ws.1 to 3. CW1 are examined as P.W.1, CW2 is 13 S.C.No.1331/2024 examined as PW2 and CW11 is examined as P.W.3. On perusal of the entire records, the prosecution have examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in support of its case. P.W.1 is the complainant. PW4 is the panchanama witness, who had accompanied in the raid and he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW2 is the police official who had accompanied in the raid and he has taken the complaint to the station and handed over to CW11 and he has lead the evidence inconsistency with P.W.1. P.W.3 is the person who has registered the case and has made investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also recorded the voluntary statement of the accused persons and filed the charge sheet. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, it is noticed that PWs.1 and 2 have deposed with respect to the incident and P.W.1 having received the information, has secured the panchas CW7 and CW8 and the police staff CW2 to CW6 and has conducted the raid and arrested the said accused persons along with deadly weapons and P.W.1 having seized the articles from the accused persons in presence of panchas and having conducted the panchanama, secured the accused persons and the articles and brought them to the police station and has lodged the complaint, PW2 has deposed with respect to the incident and having received the information, has secured the panchas CW7 and CW8 and the police staff CW2 to CW6 and has conducted the raid and arrested the said accused persons along with deadly weapons. P.W.3 having received the said complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.71/2020 for the offences punishable u/s.399, 402 of IPC. Both PWs.1 and 2 have deposed with respect to to the said incident as P.W.1 is the complainant and PW2 is the police official who had accompanied P.W.1 in the said raid. They have been cross-examined 14 S.C.No.1331/2024 by the accused counsel wherein they have denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.
16. The prosecution have not secured panchas CWs.7 to 10, in spite of issuance of summons and warrant, the police have failed to publish the proclamation issued against them, and as such, they are dropped. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses. P.W.3- the Investigating officer has lead the evidence and he has deposed with respect to lodging of the complaint by P.W.1 and he having registered the case, has prepared PF of seized articles. In the cross-examination P.W.1 has denied the suggestion of the accused counsel with respect to the defense of the accused. P.W.3 is the investigating officer who has conducted the investigation and has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
17. On perusal of the entire evidence P.Ws.1 to 3, who are Police officials, have deposed with respect to the case and the investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1 in the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra enumerated conditions for valid panchanama. It is held that panchanama is a document having legal bearings which records evidence and findings that an officer makes at the scene of an offence. However, it is not only the recordings of the scene of crime but also of anywhere else which may be related to the crime/offence and from where incriminating evidence is likely to be collected. The documents so prepared needs to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares the same and atleast by two independent and impartial witnesses called 'panchas' as also by the concerned party. The 15 S.C.No.1331/2024 witnesses are required to be not only impartial but also 'respectable'. Respectable here would mean a person who is not dis-reputed. One should also check if the witnesses are in their senses at the time of panchanama proceedings. The primary intention behind the panchanama is to guard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers entrusted with the execution of the search, with or without warrant and also to ensure that anything incriminating which may be said to have been found in the premises or location searched was really found there and was not introduced or planted by the officers of the search party. The legislative intent is to control and to check these mal practices of the officers, by making the presence of independent and respectable persons compulsory for search of a place and seizure of articles.
18. On any deviation from the procedure, the entire panchanama cannot be discarded and the proceedings are not vitiated. If any deviation from the procedure occurs due to a practical impossibility, then that should be recorded by the IO in his file so as to enable him who answered during the time of his examination as a witness in the court of law.
19. The procedure enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed by the Investigating Officer while drawing the panchanama. In a case u/s.399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, the evidence of panch witnesses and panchanama plays pivotal role. There is no evidence of independent witnesses to prove the drawing of panchanama in this case. The entire case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence of PWs1 to 3 has not been corroborated by any independent witness with respect to 16 S.C.No.1331/2024 conducting raid and arresting of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied to prove the guilt of the accused No.3, as such, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.3. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answered points No.1 and 2 in the 'negative'
20. Point No.3: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.3 shall remain in force for a period of three months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. and the same shall stand cancelled automatically after three months.
Note: The office is directed to preserve entire case file along with MOs.1 to 5 in connection with the absconding accused.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar directly on Computer, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 20th day of May, 2025) (HEMANTH KUMAR C.R.) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Siddappa
17 S.C.No.1331/2024
P.W.2 G. Ravindra Kumar
P.W.3 Santhosh. G
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complainant Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Panchanama
List of material objects marked in S.C.No.1128/2022:
MO.1 Knife MO.2 Rod MO.3 Long MO.4 Rod MO.5 Chilly powder packet
List of witnesses examined, documents and M.Os. Marked on behalf of accused: -NIL-
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.