Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs A1. Raju @ Kuruda Raja S/O. Ningaiah on 23 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-56)
:Present :
Sri Kotrayya M. Hiremath, B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
: S.C.No. 1484/2014 :
and
: S.C.No. 854/2015:
DATED: THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.
Complainant: The State of Karnataka,
(in S.C.1484/2014 Through the Police-Inspector,
& S.C.854/2015) Rajagopalnagar Police Station, Bangalore.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
Accused : A1. Raju @ Kuruda Raja s/o. Ningaiah,
(in S.C.1484/2014) Age : 26 years, r/at: Manjunatha
Society Vatara, 3rd J cross,
Rajivgandinagara, Laggere, Bengaluru.
A2. Narasimha s/o. L. Raju,
Age : 19 years, r/at : Sunnada Goodu,
Near Parota Shop, Rajivgandinagara,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
A4. Vijay @ Viji s/o. Balistar Sahani,
Age : 19 years, r/at : No.444,
3rd cross, Near Shree Ganesha Temple,
Balajingara, Laggere, Bengaluru.
Parmanent Address:-
Balooye Bazaar Village, Gopal Gaanj
-Hobli, Maajagad, Patna, Bihar State.
A5. Kiran @ Sexy Kiran s/o. Pundalika,
Age : 22 years, r/at : No.370,
2nd cross, L.G.Ramanna Layout,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri D.R., Advocate for A1 & A5,
Sri B.M.V., Advocate for A4)
2 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
Accused : A6. Putta @ Sachin @ Sachinkumar,
(in S.C. 854/2015) S/o. N.T. Umesh,
Age : 20 years, r/at Srinivasa building,
Dharmaraya Road, 1st Cross,
Kogilu cross Road, Yalahanka Hale-ooru,
Bangalore.
(By Sri G.N.A., Advocate for A6)
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of 22-12-2013
Offence
2. Date of report of 22-12-2013
Occurrence
3. Date of commencement 20-5-2015
of evidence
4. Date of closing of 9-12-2015
Evidence
5. Name of the Sri A. Shivakumar, PSI,
complainant Rajagopalnagar police station
6. Offence complained of u/secs. 399 and 402 of IPC
7. Date of arrest A1-On 22-12-2013
A2 -On 22-12-2013
A4 -On 22-12-2013
A5 -On 13-1-2015
A6 -On 30-6-2015
8. Date of release A1 - On 4-1-2014
A2 - In custody
A4 - On 4-1-2014
A5 - On 25-10-2014
A6 - On 25-8-2015
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence not proved
10. Duration: (from date of 02 year and 01 day
commission of offence)
11. Order of sentence Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 are
acquitted
3 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
In this case the Police Inspector of Rajagopalnagar Police
station, Bangalore, has filed the charge sheets against accused
Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 (S.C No.1484/2014) and against A6
(S.C.No.854/2015) alleging that they have committed the
offence of "making preparation to commit dacoity" and
"assembling for purpose of committing dacoity" punishable
u/secs. 399 & 402 of IPC.
2. These S.C.No.1484/2014 and S.C.No.854/2015
have arisen out of a same incident, these are clubbed together
for recording common evidence in S.C.No.1484/2014 and
therefore to avoid the repeatation of facts and reasons both of
these cases are disposed-off by this common Judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution as per
charge sheet are as under:-
3 (a) The incident took place on 22-12-2013 at about
3.15 pm in the open site near Shiva Temple on Pipeline road, in
Chowdeshwarinagara at Laggere situated within the limits of
Rajagopalnagar Police Station, Bangalore. The complainant-
PSI received a credible information about the incident.
Immediately the complainant and his staff along with panchas
went to the said spot, they noticed the presence of accused
4 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
persons armed with deadly weapons and they got it confirmed
that the accused have the intention to commit dacoity in the
above mentioned place. They raided the spot, surrounded the
accused and were able to catch hold of 4(four) persons. Then,
in presence of CWs.2 to 4 pancha witnesses, the complainant-
PSI seized the deadly weapons from accused Nos.1 to 4. The
remaining accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 and A7 juvenile offender
threw their deadly weapons in the spot, they ran-away and
escaped. The CW1/PSI lodged the complaint. After completion
of investigation the present charge sheet is filed against
accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 for the offence punishable u/secs. 399
and 402 of IPC.
4. On receipt of charge sheet, the learned VII ACMM,
Bangalore City has taken cognizance of the offence against
accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 as per the charge sheet and after
complying with sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. he has committed the case
u/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 5 for trial which
came to be registered as S.C.No.1484/2014. Subsequently he
committed the other split-up case against A6 which came to be
registered as S.C.No.854/2015. Inspite of issuance of
summons and warrants the accused No.3 did not appear before
this court. Therefore, when the case S.C.No.1484/2014 was at
5 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
the stage of HBC, the case against accused No.3 is split-up by
this court.
5. These are the sessions trial cases. Both the parties
are, therefore, heard by this court u/sec. 227 of Cr.P.C before
framing the charge. It was found that there are sufficient
grounds for presuming that the accused have committed the
alleged offence. Therefore, the charge has been framed
separately in both the cases u/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C for the
offence punishable u/sec. 399 and 402 of IPC against accused
Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in S.C.No.1484/2015 and against accused
No.6 in S.C.No.854/2015. It was read over and explained to
the accused persons. They have pleaded not guilty and have
claimed to be tried. For the sake of convenience these two
cases are clubbed together for common trial. Accordingly the
cases are tried by this court.
5(a) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has
adduced the oral evidence of two panch witnesses as PWs 1 and
2 and has produced the documentary evidence such as mahazar
and statement of witnesses and got them marked as Exs.P1 to 3.
5(b) After closure of prosecution evidence it is noticed
that there is no incriminating evidence on record against the
6 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
accused persons. Therefore, the recording of statements of
accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. There is no
defence side evidence u/sec. 233 of Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
7. Now the following points will arise for my
consideration and determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that on 22-12-2013 at
about 3.15 pm, in the open site near Shiva
Temple on Pipeline road, in
Chowdeshwarinagara at Laggere situated
within the limits of Rajagopalnagar Police
Station, Bangalore, the accused Nos.1, 2
and 4 to 6 along with other accused persons
made preparation to commit dacoity by
possessing deadly weapons and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/sec. 399
of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2
and 4 to 6 along with other accused persons
were one of the five or more persons who
had assembled for the purpose of committing
dacoity and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/sec. 402 of IPC?
3) What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following :
7 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
REASONS
Point Nos. 1 and 2 :-
9. There are totally eleven witnesses named in the
charge sheet as CWs 1 to 11. Among them the prosecution has
examined the CWs. 2 and 3 as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively.
Therefore, the prosecution is now depending upon the oral
evidence of these PWs. 1 & 2 and the documentary evidence
Exs.P1 to 3 to prove its case.
10. The CW2 K. Manikanta is examined as PW1. The
case of prosecution is that the Mahazar Ex.P1 was conducted in
presence of CWs 2, 3 and 4 panch witnesses. This PW1 has
stated that the Rajagopalnagar police have taken his signature
and that the Ex.P1(a) is his signature. But he has further
stated that the Rajagopalnagara police did not call him for the
purpose of this case, that they did not take him to any other
place, that they have not seized any articles in his presence
and that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1. He has
specifically stated that about 2 years back he had been to
Rajagopalanagar police station for his other work and that the
police took his signature at that time. He has further stated
that he does not know the accused persons of this case.
8 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
11. The CW3 Girish K. is examined as PW2. This PW2
has stated that the Rajagopalnagar police have taken his
signature and that the Ex.P1(b) is his signature. But he has
further stated that the Rajagopalnagara police did not call him
for the purpose of this case, that they did not take him to any
other place, that they have not seized any articles in his
presence and that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1. He
too has specifically stated that about 2 years back he had been
to Rajagopalanagar police station for his other work and that
the police took his signature at that time. He has further
stated that he does not know the accused persons of this case.
12. The prosecution got issued witness summons and
warrants to all other witnesses CWs 1 and 4 to 11. But inspite
of issuance of summons and warrants several times these CWs
1 and 4 to 11 did not come forward to give their oral evidence.
Because of this reason the prayer of learned public prosecutor
for re-issue of witness warrants to these witnesses is rejected
by the court.
13. Therefore, it is to be noticed that the so called
panch witnesses, who are examined as PWs 1 and 2, have not
supported the case of prosecution. The learned public
9 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
prosecutor treated them as hostile witnesses and subjected
them to cross-examination. Even then they have not supported
the case of prosecution. The prosecution has therefore failed to
prove the Ex.P1 Mahazar. It means that the prosecution has
failed to prove the seizure of weapons from accused persons.
There is no other evidence on record to show that these
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 were present in the place of
incident at the time of incident. There is no any connecting link
to connect these accused persons with the alleged incident.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against
the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6. The Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4
to 6 are therefore entitled for clear acquittal. Hence the point
Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
Point No.3:
14. In view of the findings already given on point Nos.
and 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
In exercise of the power conferred u/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of S.C.No.1484/2014 and accused No.6 of S.C.No.854/2015 are acquitted for the alleged commission of offence punishable u/secs. 399 and 402 of IPC and they are set at liberty.
10 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015 2) The bail bonds executed by accused Nos. 1and 4 to 6 and their surety bonds stand cancelled.
3) The A2 Narasimha is in J.C. The Jail authority is directed to release A2 forthwith, if he is not required to be detained for any other case. Issue intimation to the concerned jail authority accordingly.
4) The properties reported in P.F. No. 201/2013 of Rajgopalnagar police station mentioned in Col. Nos. 4 and 5 of charge sheets of both the cases shall be retained till disposal of the split-up cases against A3 and A8.
Keep a copy of this Judgment in S.C.No.854/2015.
[Directly, dictated to the Judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this 23rd day of December 2015.] (Kotrayya M. Hiremath) LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURES List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW1 K. Manikanta PW2 Girish K
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
11 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2 PW1's written statement
Ex.P3 PW2's written statement
List of Material Objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution:
-NIL-
List of Witnesses Examined and documents marked on behalf of the defense:
-NIL-
(Kotrayya M. Hiremath) LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.12 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015 13 S.C No. 1484/2014 & 854/2015