Bangalore District Court
Mallikarjun vs Kondaiah B Alias Bagadi on 28 August, 2025
KABC030357162022 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 07-05-2022
Registered on : 07-05-2022
Decided on : 28-08-2025
Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 28th Day of August, 2025
C. C. No.13599/2022
(Crime No.26/2022)
State by J.C. Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Kondaiah B @ Bagaadi,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sri Chinakondaiah,
R/at No.141, M.R.S. Palya,
Near, Ayyappa School,
Nandidurga Road,
Benson Town Post,
J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru City.
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
Native Place:
House No.197,
Padumachchunaidupalli,
Maripaadu Taluk,
Nelluru District,
Andhra Pradesh State ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Channegowda K. R, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 15-03-2022
offence
2. Date of FIR 15-03-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 13-04-2022
4. Name of Complainant Sri Mallikarjuna
5. Offences complained of Under Section 457, 380,
511 of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 21-11-2022
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 21-12-2023
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 28-08-2025
reserved
2
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
10. Date of Judgment 28-08-2025
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J C Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380, 511 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 15-03-2022 in between 1 am to 1.15 am, the accused tried to break the CCTV cameras installed at the HDFC Bank ATM unit at No.31, 1st Main Road, Chinnappa Garden and also tried to break the lock of HDFC ATM machine in order to commit theft.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, Sri Arasegowda, ASI of J.C. Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.26/2022 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380, 511 of IPC, prepared FIR and handed over the case papers to CW10.
3KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers, CW10/PW7 Sri Raghupathy.H.S., PSI drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 15-03-2022 from 12.35 pm to 13.20 pm in presence of CW3 namely Sri Janardhan and CW4 namely Sri Santhosh.B.P. and seized stone, Helmet and DVD and subjected under PF No.15/2022, CW8 and CW9 produced the accused and submitted report as per Ex.P6, recorded the statement of witnesses and voluntary statement of accused. He seized the vehicle produced by accused which was used for commission of offecnce as per Ex.P5 seizure mahazar in the presence of CW6 and CW7, recorded the statement of eyewitness CW2, received certificate u/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act from CW5 as per Ex.P7, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
6. At the per-cognazance stage, the accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 06-04-2022.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
4KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec 457, 380, 511 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 10 witnesses and examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents and MO1 to 3 and closed their side. The examination of CW9 was given up by the order dated 27-12-2024 on account of examination of CW8, as he deposed the same evidence. Process returned un served on CW4 and CW7 and hence the examination of CW4 and CW7 were given up by the order dated 16-04-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
5KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 15-03-2022 in between 1.00 am to 1.15 am the accused with an intention to commit theft trespassed into the HDFC Bank ATM unit situated at No.31, 1st Main Road, Chinnappa Garden thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.457 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above mentioned date, place and time, the accused tried to break the CCTV cameras installed at the HDFC ATM and also tried to break the lock of HDFC ATM machine in order to commit theft thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.380 and 511 of IPC?
6KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
3. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows i CW1 namely Sri Mallikarjuna, being informant examined as PW1 identified his signatures on Ex.P1 (complaint) and Ex.P2 (Spot mahazar) as per Ex.P1(a) and 2(a) and deposed that he affixed his signature at the request of police in respect of attempt for committing theft in ATM. He further deposed that he has not given complaint against accused and no mahazar was drawn in his presence. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness, but 7 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case.
ii. CW3 Sri Janardhan Patil, pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on Ex.P2 spot mahazar as per Ex.P2(b) and deposed that two years ago, he affixed his signature at the request of police. Further, the police have not drawn mahazar in his presence and not inquired him, he has not given any statement to police. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P3.
iii. CW2 Sri Magimai Balan, eye witness examined as PW3 pleaded ignorance about the case of prosecution. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P4.
iv. CW5 Sri M.K.Gopi, Photograper examined as PW4 deposed that 3 years ago, the police came to his studio namely Shiva Photo Studio and asked him to 8 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 take photo of HDFC Bank ATM machine being damaged. Accordingly, he took the photo, put it on a DVD, hard drive of CCTV device in the computer in his studio and then through process of burned/copied the CD to the DVD. He identified the said DVD as MO1 and gave an affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
v. CW6 Sri Shahabaaz, pancha witness examined as PW5 deposed that in the year 2022, the J.C. Nagara Police have drawn seizure mahazar as per Ex.P5 at church road in respect of destruction of ATM machine by throwing stone and seized helmet and two-wheeler and obtained his signature. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as partly hostile witness and in his cross examination he deposed that he affixed his signature at police station and helmet was not seized in his presence at that time as the police told him that the accused wore a helmet.
vi. CW8 Sri Naveen Kumar, the Head Constable examined as PW6 deposed that CW10 deputed him and CW9 to trace out the accused in Crime NO.26/2022 by giving the photograph of accused. According they apprehended the accused near the Nissan showroom in JC Nagar and comparing the photograph of accused with the person present 9 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 therein and confirmed that he was the one in the photograph. The accused and the vehicle were produced before CW10 and CW9 submitted the report.
vii. CW10 by name Sri Raghupathy, the then PSI, examined as PW7 deposed that after receipt of case papers from PSI Sri Arasegowda, he continued the investigation and spot mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW3 and CW4 and stone, helmet and the DVD were seized as per MO1 to MO3, CW8 and CW9 produced the accused before him along with report as per Ex.P6, he recorded the statement of witnesses and voluntary statement of accused, the vehicle used by the accused was seized under Ex.P5 seizure mahazar in the presence of CW6 and CW7, the statement of eye witness CW2 and further statement of CW1 were recorded. CW5 had submitted Section 65B certificate in respect of copying the DVD link sent by CW1 to MO1 through the mail, and he identified the said certificate as per Ex.P7. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
15. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of the present case. The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 457 of IPC prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to 10 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 commit offence punishable with imprisonment. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of house breaking at night are:-
1. The accused should have entered into the property which is in possession of another.
2. There should be an intention to commit an offence on part of the accused.
3. Such property should be any building / tent/ vessel used for human dwelling on place for worship or for custody of property.
4. Entry into the house should have been effected by the accused in any one of the six ways as defined under Section 454 IPC wherein a person is said to have committed house breaking if he affects his entrance into the house or any part thereof or affect his exist in any of the six ways described in the said section. The six ways given in the said Section are as follows:-11
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
1. If he enters or quits through a passage by himself or by any abettor to commit house trespass
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person other than himself or the abettor for human entrance; or through any passage to which he had obtained by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor has opened which passage is not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock to commit house trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance by using criminal force or committing assault or any by threatening a person with assault.12
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure and he had unfastened the same.
16. Section 380 of IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house/building. The offence of theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:-
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable property.
3. The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.
4. There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
5. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.13
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
17. 511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
The core ingredients of Section 511 of IPC which reads as under
i. The accused must have the specific intent to commit the underlying offense.
ii. The accused has taken some concrete step to carry out the intended crime.
iii. The act done must be directly related to the commission of the offense 14 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 and not just a remote preparatory step.
iv. The offense must be one that is punishable by imprisonment and for which the IPC does not provide a specific punishment for the attempt.
18. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
19. The identity of accused in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be inducted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the instant case, the evidence of PW3 and PW1 who are eye witness and informant for the alleged offence to 15 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 the prosecution case, however has not supported the case. In their examination in chief and cross examination, they deposed as under
ದಿ.15-03-2022 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಜಾವ 01-00 ರಿಂದ 01-15 ಗಂಟೆವರೆಗೆ ಚಿನ್ನಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಎಫ್ ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಘಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಲು ಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಮೆಷಿನ್ ಲಾಕ್ ಮುರಿದು ಕಳ್ಳತನಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋದಾಗ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿ ಪರಾರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ನಂತರ ಕೃತ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬಳಸಿ ಒಂದು ಹಿಡಿ ಗಾತ್ರದ ಕಲ್ಲು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ಟನ್ನು, ದೃಶ್ಯಾವಳಿ ಇರುವ ಡಿವಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಅದೇ ದಿನ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಈಗ ಓದಿ ಹೇಳಿ ಕೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.4 ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ನಿಪಿ.4 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ರಾಜಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ 16 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
PW1 being informant deposed that:
ದಿ.15-03-2022 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಜಾವ 01-15 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಿನ್ನಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಎಫ್ ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಘಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ್ದ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ, ಎಟಿಎಂ ಮೆಷಿನ್ ಲಾಕ್ ಮುರಿದು ಕಳ್ಳತನಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದ ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿ ಪರಾರಿಯಾಗಿರುತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಿಪಿ.1 ರಂತೆ ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಂತರ ಅದೇ ದಿನ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನಾನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 3 ಮತ್ತು 4 ರವರ ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಂತೆ ಸ್ಥಳ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಜರುಗಿಸಿ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ ಒಂದು ಡಿವಿಡಿ, ಒಂದು ಹಿಡಿಗಾತ್ರದ ಕಲ್ಲು, ಒಂದು ಕಪ್ಪು ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರೇ ಬಣ್ಣದ ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ಟನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತ್ತುಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನಿಪಿ.1 ಮತ್ತು 2ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ರಾಜಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ 17 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ನೋಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
Thus, the accused was not identified by the PW1. The witness the need for clear and categorical identification, as a forthright piece of evidence. The evidence given by the witnesses before the court is the substantive evidence. In a case where the witness is a stranger to the accused and she identifies the accused person before the court for the first time, the court will not ordinarily accept that identification as conclusive. It is to lend assurance to the testimony of the witness that evidence in the form of an earlier identification is tendered. If the accused is got identified by the witness soon after their arrest and such identification does not suffer from any infirmity that circumstance lends corroboration to the evidence given by the witness before the court. But in a case where the evidence of PW1 before the court is itself shaky, the identification before the magistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution. Thus, the PW1 did not identified the accused and hence the identity of accused was not proved by the prosecution and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Bollavaram Peda Narsi Reddy and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1468.18
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
20. No attempt was made by IO /PW7 to secure the fingerprints from spot i.e. No.31, in front of HDFC ATM center, Chinnappa Garden II Main Road, J. C. Nagar, Bangalore to connect the accused at the time of drawing the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW3 namely Sri Janardhan Patil S/o Siddaramappa Patil and CW4 namely Sri Santhosh.B.P., S/o Puttaraj U Byattagowda.
21. It is the version of prosecution that mere furnishing of the photograph of accused whilst opening the glass door without any particulars of name of ATM Center or his attempts was made for committing theft in the HDFC ATM Center does not have any credential/evidentiary value.
22. The informant did not see the culprit, who made an attempt to commit theft in the ATM center and had broken the CCTV or ATM machine. No piece of photograph or video graphed the said incident whilst conducting mahazar as per Ex.P2 to prove the alleged incident.
23. The prosecution could not produce any witness, who had seen the accused committing the offence of breaking ATM Machine and made an attempt to commit theft.19
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
24. The prosecution though alleged to have seized stone, DVD, black and grey colour helmet from the spot on 15/03/2022 however no attempts were made to secure the fingerprints from the stone and helmet by sending the same to the expert. If the said DVD was produced to corroborate at 3.32 mins of the alleged incident but the same was not displayed before any of the prosecution witnesses to identify the person in the said DVD and accused are one and the same but the same was burned to the DVD from videograph through the photographer PW4 Sri Gopi. Thus, the version of PW7 makes it very clear that DVD is a secondary evidence. This court cannot rely upon the voluntary statement of accused unless the DVD copied through Safe Care Head office was proved that DVD was free from any edition as CCTV footage is typically transferred to a computer and then can be edited using video editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro, or iMovie. The prosecution through IO/PW7 failed to prove that the DVD was not tainted with any edition and alteration.
25. Pancha witnesses namely PW2 and PW5 deposed as under
ದಿ.15-03-2022 ರಂದು ಚಿನ್ನಪ್ಪ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಎಫ್ ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಘಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ತೋರಿಸಿದ 20 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಂತೆ ಸ್ಥಳ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಅಲ್ಲೇ ಇದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಡಿವಿಡಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಹಿಡಿ ಗಾತ್ರದ ಕಲ್ಲು ಹಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ಟನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತ್ತುಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ದಿನ ಈಗ ಓದಿ ಹೇಳಿ ಕೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.3 ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ನಿಪಿ.2 ಮತ್ತು 3 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ರಾಜಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
and PW5 deposed ದಿ.15-03-2022 ರಂದು ಜೆ ಸಿ ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಮುಂಭಾಗ ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನ ಹೆುಾಂಡಾ ಆಕ್ಟೀವಾ ಸಂ.ಕೆಎ-04- ಕೆಜಿ-0644 ಅನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 7 ರವರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಜೆ 03-10 ರಿಂದ 04-15 ಗಂಟೆವರೆಗೂ ಅಮಾನತ್ತು ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಜರುಗಿಸಿ ಪ್ರಿಂಟರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಿಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 7 ರವರ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆಸಿ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಲ್ಮೆಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಿ ಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ 21 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡರು ಬಂದರು ಎಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the mahazars through the independent witnesses.
26. The seizure of helmet and vehicle from the possession of the accused was not helpful for the prosecution case.
27. After going through the material on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt qua offences U/s.457, 380 and 511 of IPC. From the above discussions, it is clear that the identity of this accused involved in this commission of offence has not been established. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences punishable under section 457, 380, 511 of IPC and accordingly, accused is entitled to be acquitted for the said offences, thereby this court answers the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
28. Point No.3:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
22KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 511 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 to MO3 shall be destroyed.
(v) After expiry of appeal period, the interim custody of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 04 KG 0644, granted in favour of petitioner is made absolute.
(vi) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of August, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
23KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Mallikarjuna, Informant PW2: Sri Janardhan Patil Pancha witness PW3: Sri Magimai Balan, Eye witness PW4: Sri M.K.Gopi, Photographer PW5: Sri Shahabaaz Pancha witness PW6 Sri Naveen Kumar, HC PW7 Sri Raghupathy PI/IO Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar PW2 Ex.P3: Statement of PW3 PW3 Ex.P4: Statement of PW4 PW4 Ex.P5: Seizure mahazar PW5 Ex.P6: Report PW7 Ex.P7: Certificate under section 65 PW7 24 KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
Material Objects marked on behalf of prosecution:
MO1 : DVD MO2 : Stone MO3 : Helmet
Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.25
KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022 28-8-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 511 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry00 of appeal period, MO1 to MO3 shall be destroyed.
(v) After expiry of appeal period, the interim custody of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 04 KG 0644, granted in favour of petitioner is made absolute.
26KABC030357162022 CC No.13599/2022
(vi) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
27