Bangalore District Court
State By vs Saddam @ Saddam Hussain on 18 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 18th day of June 2020
PRESENT: Sri.G.R.KULKARNI,
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.52061/2017
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
HAL Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1. Saddam @ Saddam Hussain,
S/o.Late.Jeeya, 21 yrs. No.1026, 2nd
Cross, 2nd Main, Islampura, HAL,
Bengaluru.
2. Jameer @ Valli, S/o.late. Sayed
Gouse, 19 yrs. Next to Kerala Masjid,
2nd Main, Islampura, HAL, Bengaluru.
A.3 Jameer - absconding.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a chargesheet submitted by the HAL Police for the offences punishable U/Secs. 454, 380 of IPC.
2. Brief facts:
It is case of the prosecution that on 03/02/2015 at about 9.30 AM this jurisdiction limits of HAL police station at the house of the complainant situated at house No.491/1 Gura Appareddy lane, 2 CC No.52061/2017 Annasandrapalya the accused have entered the said house by using duplicate Key and in furtherance of common intention have stolen four laptops, Cell phones and an amount of Rs.16,000/- and ran away. On receipt of the complaint, investigation was taken and after completion of the investigation charge sheet against accused is submitted.
3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and have been released on bail. A.3 absconding. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused. After hearing, the charge is framed and read over to the accused. Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4 on its behalf. Statement of the accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. are recorded. Accused have denied the incriminating circumstances as false. Accused persons submit no defence.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides.
6. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 03/02/2015 at about 9.30 AM this jurisdiction limits of HAL police station at the house of the complainant situated at house 3 CC No.52061/2017 No.491/1 Gura Appareddy lane, Annasandrapalya the accused have entered the said house by using duplicate Key and in furtherance of common intention have stolen four laptops, Cell phones and an amount of Rs.16,000/- and ran away and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
7. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1:
PW.1 Kapildev, who is the complainant in this case has stated that on 03.02.2015, four laptops, four Cell phones and Rs.16,000/- cash and one reliance modem was stolen from his house situated at Annasandrapalya. He came to know of said facts when he returned from the office. Thereafter given the complaint as per Ex.P1 before the police. Thereafter on the same day police have visited the spot conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P2. The police have not shown the accused to him and the stolen property has not been recovered. PW.1 has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.4 CC No.52061/2017
9. PW.2 S.Devaraj is the investigation officer who has testified the manner in which he has conducted investigation.
10. PW.3 Srinivasa Reddy is the person who has registered the case and drawn FIR as per Ex.P.4. He has also conducted the Panchanama as per Ex.P.2.
11. CW.2 and 3 who are the alleged panchas to Ex.P.2 have not secured by the prosecution. The recovery of the stolen property from the accused is not proved in this case which is fatal to the case of prosecution. The identity of the accused is not proved in this case. The evidence of PW.s.1 to 3 does not connect the accused to the alleged offences against him in any manner. Therefore the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is not sufficient in attributing the guilt of the accused to the offences alleged against them. The benefit of doubt is required to be extended in favour of the accused as prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/S.454, 380 r/w.34 of 5 CC No.52061/2017 IPC. Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of June 2020).
(G.R.KULKARNI) XXIX Addl.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 Kapildev Nil
PW.2 S.Devaraj.
PW.3 Srinivashreddy.
Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.3.
Ex.P.2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Report.
Ex.P4 FIR.
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.3.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
XXIX A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
6 CC No.52061/2017
18.06.2020
State by APP
Accused
For Judgment
(Judgment passed vide separate order in the Open Court) ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/S.454, 380 r/w.34 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
XXIX ACMM