Bangalore District Court
Rmc Yard P.S vs A1 Anjad on 10 October, 2025
KABC010154862022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
Sri. S.N. Kalkani, B.Com, LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
S.C.No.1084/2022
Complainant: State by RMC Yard
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
1. Amjad S/o Akthar Pasha,
Accused:
Aged about 23 years,
2. Parashurama @ Parish,
S/o Ayyappa,
Aged about 21 years,
Both are R.at R/at Near the office
of DSS Murthy, Near BDA Complex,
Maalagala, Sammanahalli,
Annapurneshwarinagar,
Bengaluru.
3. Thoma ..... Absconding
(By Sri. P.S.D, Advocate)
Date of offence: 01.01.2018
Date of report of 01.01.2018
offence:
Name of complainant: Girish C.G.
Date of recording of 06.12.2023
evidence:
Date of closing of 23.06.2025
evidence:
2 S.C.No.1084/2022
Offence complained of: U/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34
of IPC
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
*****
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the RMC Yard Police in Cr.No.1/2018 against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that:
On 01.01.2018, at about 3.00 a.m. near Goraguntepalya, the accused No.1 to 3 and juvenile had criminal conspiracy to commit robbery and came in a Car No.KA-05/AA-7510 and on the guise of giving drop to C.W.1, who was standing to go to his house, kidnapped him and made him to sit in the middle of back seat and thereafter the juvenile and accused No.3 assaulted him with hands and snatched his Moto-E3 mobile phone and purse containing Rs.100/- and ATM card and the accused No.2 by showing a rod threatened the C.W.1 to reveal the correct PIN number and later, the accused stopped the car near BDA Complex, Nagarabhavi and in HDFC Bank ATM, they withdrawn Rs.1,500/- and thereafter dropped C.W.1 near Arch of Laggere and returned his ATM Card and also threatened to take away his life if he revealed the matter to the Police.
3. After completion of investigation, the complainant Police filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 before the trial Court by showing accused No.3 as absconding accused and filing a separate charge sheet against the juvenile. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the 3 S.C.No.1084/2022 learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the said case has been made over to this Court for disposal.
4. After hearing the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and also the learned Public Prosecutor on framing charge, this Court has framed charge against them for the offences punishable u/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC, to which the accused No.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and thereby claimed to be tried of the said offences.
5. In support of the case of prosecution, 5 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and has got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 20 and M.O.1. After closing of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused No.1 and 2 recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, in which they have denied incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the prosecution evidence as false and they have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused. Perused the documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.01.2018, at about 3.00 a.m. near Goraguntepalya, the accused No.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 and juvenile came in a Car No.KA-05/AA-7510 and in furtherance of common intention, had hatched criminal conspiracy to commit robbery against C.W.1 and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 along 4 S.C.No.1084/2022 with accused No.3 and juvenile, in furtherance of common intention, kidnapped the C.W.1 by boarding him to the car on the guise of giving drop to him and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.364(A) r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 and juvenile, in furtherance of common intention, committed robbery of mobile phone of C.W.1 by assaulting with hands and withdrawn Rs.1,500/- by using his ATM Card and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.397 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4.What order?
7. After hearing arguments of both side and on considering oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are:
Points No.1 to 3: In the negative, Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 3: These points are interconnected to each other and as such, they are taken up together for discussion.
9. As already the brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the charge sheet for the alleged offences have been taken on record, at this stage, the same are not taken on record to avoid repetition.
10. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of P.W.1/ C.W.1, it is the reiteration of Ex.P.1- complaint which is similarly referred in the case of the prosecution mentioned in the 5 S.C.No.1084/2022 charge sheet regarding the alleged kidnap and robbery of Rs.100/- cash, Moto-E3 mobile phone and also Rs.1,500/- drawn from ATM card by one of the persons out of 4 accused persons in car No.KA- 05/AA-7510. The P.W.1 has identified his signatures as per Ex.P.1(a) in the complaint and also as per Ex.P.2(a) in the spot-panchanama allegedly drawn in front of Goraguntepalya Circle where the kidnap has happened.
11. In the further chief-examination evidence, the P.W.1 has stated that he allegedly seen the three persons at Police station namely Amjad, Parashuram and one Sharanabasappa, out of whom, the first two persons are accused No.1 and 2 in this case and the other person is the alleged juvenile and further he has identified the accused No.1 and 2 before the Court and also his mobile phone, rod, Tata Indica car and Rs.500/- at Police station. The P.W.1 has identified one rod as per M.O.1 before this Court and further stated that he would identify the mobile phone and cash of Rs.500/-, but the photographs of cash are not produced. He has identified the Moto-E3 mobile phone in the four photographs as per Exs.P.5 to 8.
12. In the cross-examination evidence, the P.W.1 has stated there was cash of Rs.100/- to 150/- in his purse and there was Rs.2,500/- in his bank account/ ATM card related when he was kidnapped by the accused persons. He has further admitted that there were security guard when he was taken to ATM counter by one of the accused persons to draw the amount of Rs.1,500/- and further stated that he had no difficulty to intimate the security about his kidnap by the accused persons, but further stated that he had wound in the leg for which he was not able to runaway when he was alighted from the car 6 S.C.No.1084/2022 nearby ATM at Nagarabhavi BDA Complex. He has further stated that he was subsequently left at his place Laggere at 3.45 to 4.00 a.m. and immediately he did not file the complaint. The P.W.1 in the further cross-examination denied the suggestion that he was due to pay car rent of Rs.500/- and for that reason, he himself took the accused persons near Nagarabhavi BDA complex, withdrawn the amount from ATM and paid to the accused persons and as such the accused persons did not commit any offence of dacoity in any manner. He has further admitted the suggestion that he put his signature on Ex.P.2 - mahazar at Police station without knowing its contents.
13. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.2/ C.W.6 who identified his signature as per Ex.P.3(a) has turned hostile to case of prosecution by saying that at Police station Police have shown him the pen-drive and CD, but he did not notice any video therein and further not gave any statement before the Police.
14. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.2 by treating him hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has completely denied the suggestion that the P.W.1 was kidnapped by the accused persons and a boy in conflict with law took him from the car at ATM of HDFC bank and also had different places to draw the amount and accordingly, the Police after conducting seizure-panchanama as per Ex.P.3 and seized the pen-drive by showing its video accordingly and at that time, he has given statement as per Ex.P.4 before the Police but denied the same.
15. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.3/ C.W.15, the retired ASI, he has stated that himself and C.Ws.13 and 14- Police Constables took the custody of accused No.1 7 S.C.No.1084/2022 and 2 namely Amjad and Parashuram along with car No.KA-05/AA- 7510 on 18.01.2018 near the office of DSS Murthy at BDA Complex, Annapurneshwarinagar and produced before C.W.17 along with report as per Ex.P.9 containing his signature as per Ex.P.9(a).
16. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.3 by the counsel for accused persons, he has denied the suggestion that no any accused persons were caught hold and produced with Ex.P.9- report before C.W.17.
17. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.4/ C.W.12 who is the then Police Constable of RMC Yard Police station, he has also brought the pen-drive in relation to CC camera installed near Nagarabhavi HDFC bank and he has identified the pen- drive as per Ex.P.10. He has further stated that he has produced certificate as per Ex.P.65(b) of Evidence Act given by the bank official
-Gayatri and further he has produced the same with his report as per Ex.P.11 containing his signature as per Ex.P.11(a).
18. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for accused, the P.W.4 has denied the suggestion that no such any pen- drive and certificate collected and produced before the C.W.17.
19. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of P.W.5/ C.W.17- Investigating officer who conducted the investigation has stated that he has recorded the further statement of P.W.1, who furnished the photograph of his Canara Bank passbook and ATM card and he has produced its true copies as per Exs.P.12 and 13 and further furnished the requisition to C.W.11/ HDFC bank as 8 S.C.No.1084/2022 per Ex.P.14 seeking CCTV footage of ATM and on 02.01.2018, the C.Ws.13 to 15 - staff have produced the accused No.1 and 2 and also the Tata Indica car No.KA-05/AA7510 with a report as per Ex.P.19 and he has recorded the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2 and he has produced the photograph of the said car as per Ex.P.15. He has further stated that accused No.1 and 2 gave their voluntary statements that they would produce the mobile phone and iron rod respectively as per Exs.P.16 and 17 and the accused No.2 further in the voluntary statement stated that he would produce the amount of Rs.500/- in connection with the offence of robbery. The P.W.5 has further stated that he seized an iron ord in the Tata Indica car No.KA- 05/AA7510 as produced by the accused No.1 and also seized the Moto-E3 mobile phone and Rs.500/- as produced by the accused No.2 by conducting Ex.P.18 seizure-panchanama and he has identified the car as per 15- photograph and also identified the iron rod as per M.O.1 and also identified the photograph of cash of Rs.500/- as per Ex.P.19 and also four photographs as per Exs.P.5 to 8 in respect of above said mobile phone.
20. In the chief-examination evidence, the P.W.5 has further deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 and also the child in conflict with law produced the Tata Indica car, cash of Rs.500/-, Moto-E3 mobile phone and iron rod of two feet length shown to C.W.1 who identified them and gave further statement. The Tata Indica car seized in the case has been released in favour of C.W.10 - owner and further received Sony company 8 GB pen-drive from HDFC bank with Ex.P.20- certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act and also identified his signature as per Ex.P.11(b) in the report submitted by C.W.12- staff. The P.W.5 has further conducted panchanama - Ex.P.3 by seizing 9 S.C.No.1084/2022 Ex.P.10- pen-drive which shows the scene of entry of child in conflict with law towards the bank ATM from Indica car and also drawing of amount from the ATM. It is further stated that he has verified about the fact that the amount of Rs.1500/- was drawn as per the Canara Bank statement. P.W.5 has further stated that the person in the CCTV camera is child in conflict with law - Sharanabasappa and he was after consultation before the conciliators at SJWC produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and further on 02.02.2018, released the amount of Rs.500/- and mobile phone in favour of P.W.1 and on 14.04.2018, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
21. During the cross-examination of P.W.5, it is stated that there is delay in filing the complaint due to discussion regarding the incident in the house of the complainant. It is further admitted that there were no security persons in the ATM of BDA Complex of Nagarabhavi. It is further stated that the Bank Manager was not inquired by him. It is further stated that denomination of notes of Rs.1500/- not mentioned in the case. It is further stated that mobile phone network records are not collected. The P.W.5 has further stated that mobile phone was seized from accused No.2 and subsequently admitted the suggestion that as per the restatement of complainant dated 19.01.2018, the mobile phone has been seized from the child in conflict with law. It is further stated by P.W.5 that the time of the video clipping in the pen-drive are shown in the complaint approximately.
22. It is further admitted the suggestion that on 31.12.2018, which is previous day to the alleged date of incident in the case was the last day of new year and the Police wondering in and around Bengaluru.
10 S.C.No.1084/202223. In the further cross-examination evidence, the P.W.5 has stated that finger print opinion over iron rod was not taken in this case and there was no difficulty to make such process. It is further stated by P.W.5 that no any identification parade of accused persons was conducted in presence of Tahsildar. It is further denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons in the case were involved and merely because the accused No.2 is the relative of child in conflict with law , false case registered against the accused persons.
24. During the course of trial in the case, C.W.3 is reported to be dead. In spite summons, NBW and proclamation were issued to secure C.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 being the alleged spot and seizure panchas, they are not secured and hence, they are dropped accordingly.
25. In spite summons and NBWs issued to secure C.W.11- the Manager of the Bank who has allegedly issued certificate u/s.65(b) of Evidence Act in respect of CC Camera footage of the bank and C.W.16- PSI of RMC Yard Police station who allegedly registered the complaint and partly investigated the case were not secured in spite proclamation was issued, but not published and hence, they are dropped at the risk of Investigating officer.
26. During the course of trial, the learned Public Prosecutor has given up C.Ws.10 and 14- the Police witnesses as not necessary in view of examination of other material witnesses.
27. From the entire evidence on record in view of of charge sheet filed, the material aspect that arise for consideration are that the 11 S.C.No.1084/2022 prosecution has to establish the identification of accused No.1 and 2 with regard to the alleged offence with the absconding accused No.3 and also child in conflict with law. The material point for consideration is that whether the prosecution has established that the mobile phone, cash of Rs.500/- and also M.O.1 iron rod seized from the accused No.1 and 2 in the case.
28. On scrutiny of entire evidence of P.W.1, it appears that as the child in conflict with law allegedly snatched away the ATM card of P.W.1 and he himself went to the ATM and drawn amount of Rs.1500/-. At the other stretch, the P.W.1 stated that he has also accompanied the child in conflict with law to the ATM and at that time though there was security person, P.W.1 did not sought for help from the security person or any other persons. The P.W.1 has in the cross- examination evidence further stated that there was an amount of Rs.2,500/- in his bank account in connection with ATM card which was with him. The P.W.1 further in the cross-examination stated that there were Rs.100/- to 150/- in his purse. In the complaint and the charge sheet it is alleged that Rs.100/- in the purse and Rs.1500/- only in the bank account in relation to the ATM card which was with him. There is material difference with regard to the quantum of amount actually with him and the alleged amount robbed by the accused persons in this case. If at all there was more amount as stated in the cross- examination of P.W.1, the accused persons would have taken away the more amount than the cash of Rs.100/- in the purse and an amount of Rs.1500/- from the ATM card as stated by P.W.1.
29. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, he has not particularly mentioned as to from whom particularly a mobile phone, 12 S.C.No.1084/2022 iron rod, Tata Indica car, cash of Rs.500/- were seized aby the Police. In this case, with regard to the alleged seizing of certain articles as contended by the panchanama, no any independent spot and seizure panchas were secured and examined and adduced any cogent evidence. Hence, the entire case of the prosecution rounds with the evidence of P.W.1 and the other Police officials including the P.W.5- Investigating officer.
30. From the entire evidence in the chief-examination of P.W.5, it appears that in the alleged CC Camera footage, there is no appearance of accused No.1 and 2 either in the car or at the alleged place ATM center where the amount allegedly drawn. It is particularly appearing from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 evidence that none of the articles seized in the case or the M.O.1 -rod were subjected to any examination and report by the FSL regarding any fingerprint over the same. There is further material evidence with regard to identification of the accused persons through Tahsildar with a view to collect proper material evidence with regard to proof of alleged offences u/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
31. Hence, there is absence of proof about the overtact of accused No.1 and 2 whose identification also not established in accordance with law. In the absence of further material evidence in view of absence of accused No.1 and 2 in the alleged video appearing in the pen-drive allegedly seized in this case as per Ex.P.10 and moreover, the non-securing and non-examination of C.W.11 who allegedly furnished the certificate u/s.65B of Evidence Act as further material to believe the entire case of prosecution against the accused No.1 and 2. Hence, there is material doubts with regard to entire case of 13 S.C.No.1084/2022 prosecution against which the accused persons herein have put forth their defence that they had demanded rent of the car for which the P.W.1 himself withdrawn the amount of Rs.500/- and paid to them. Hence, I deem it fit to further held that the accused persons are successful in establishing the case of prosecution as doubtful. In view of the above said reasons, mere seizing of car and such other alleged articles also does not come to the aid of prosecution to presume that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed such offence of robbery/ dacoity punishable u/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, I answered points No.1 to 3 in the negative.
32. Point No.4: As discussed herein above, the accused No.1 and 2 deserve to be acquitted in this case. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.364(A), 397 and 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The office shall preserve the entire case file along with M.O. in connection with the absconding accused No.3.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 10th day of October, 2025) (S.N. Kalkani) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.14 S.C.No.1084/2022
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1: Girish P.W.2: Kirankumar P.W.3: T.R. Ramakrishnaiah P.W.4: Manjunath M. P.W.5: Mohd. Mukkaram List of documents marked for prosecution: Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Spot-panchanama Ex.P.2(a): Signature Ex.P.3: Seizure-panchanama Exs.P.3(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.4: Statement of pancha Exs.P.5 to 8: Photos Ex.P.9: Requisition Ex.P.9(a): Signature Ex.P.10: Pen-drive Ex.P.11: Requisition Exs.P.11(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.12: Copy of Canara Bank Debit card Ex.P.13: Copy of Passbook Ex.P.14: Requisition Ex.P.14(a): Signature Ex.P.15: Copy of Photo Exs.P.16 & 17: Voluntary statement of A-1 & A-2 Ex.P.18: Seizure-panchanama Exs.P.18(a to c): Signatures Ex.P.19: Copy of Photo Ex.P.20: Certificate u/s.65b of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.20(a): Signature Material Objects marked for prosecution: M.O.1: Iron rod
List of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -Nil-15 S.C.No.1084/2022
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed
Shankarappa by Shankarappa
Nimbanna
Nimbanna Kalkani
Kalkani Date: 2025.10.18
16:45:12 +0530