Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs Anil Kumar @ Haneebi on 21 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT : K.G. CHINTHA, B.Sc., LL.B.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 21st day of May 2018
C.C.No.17479/2016
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Mico Layout PS
Bengaluru.
Vs
Accused : Anil Kumar @ Haneebi
S/o Shankar
Aged about 19 Yrs
R/at c/o House of Seenappa,
5th Cross, Abbayappa Layout,
N.S.Palya, BTM Layout 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence : 20-5-2014
Offence : U/s.454 and 380 of IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 21-5-2018.
** ** **
2 CC.No.17479/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Mico Layout Police Station has presented this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 20-5-2014 at 7-00 a.m., the accused committed lurking house trespass into the house of CW-1 bearing building No.103, 13th A Cross, 8th Main, 2nd Stage BTM Layout, Bengaluru in order to commit theft and committed theft of two laptops of Acer Company and H.P. company belonging to CW-1 and thereby accused committed the aforesaid offences.
3. On the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered by Mico Layout Police station in Cr.No.421/2014 for the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC. After investigation police have charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3 CC.No.17479/2016
4. Accused is in JC in some other case and produced under body warrant in this case.
5. Copy of the charge sheet is furnished as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. CWs.2, 1, 5, 9 and 11 are examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to 4.
7. Statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is recorded.
8. Heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for the accused.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC?
2) What Order?4 CC.No.17479/2016
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final Order for the following:-
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- CW.1 the complainant is examined as PW.2. He has deposed that on 18-6-2014 HP Laptop and Acer Laptop were stolen from his house. He had opened the door on the ground floor of his house and went to upstairs in the morning. In the meanwhile somebody came to the house and stolen the laptops. He did not see the person who committed theft in his house. After about 6 months within a year the police called him and informed that they have recovered laptop stolen from his house. Hence he went to the police station, identified the laptops and lodged complaint as per Ex.P-2. Thereafter police visited his house and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P-1.
5 CC.No.17479/2016
12. Ex.P-2 complaint discloses that on 20-5-2014 at about 7-00 a.m., the laptops were stolen from his house. Since he had urgent work at Chennai he went to Chennai and could not lodge the complaint. When he returned from Chennai his neighbour informed that police had brought the accused person to his house saying that the said accused has stolen laptops from his house and that they have recovered the same. Hence he went to the police station and police informed him that they have recovered the Acer Laptop and HP laptop and have subjected the same to the PF No.111/2014 and 113/2014. They also showed him the accused who was arrested in Cr.No.362/2014 and the accused herein has committed theft in the house of PW-2 the complainant. PW-2 was treated as hostile partly as he has deposed that theft had taken place on 18-6-2014 though in complaint he states that theft had taken place on 20-5-2014. He states that he does not remember the date of incident. In the cross- 6 CC.No.17479/2016 examination it is elicited that he has not produced any documents before the Investigating officer to show that laptop belongs to him. He has deposed that he was working for Sisco Software company and Acer Laptop belongs to the said company. He has not given the particulars of the laptop except stating the names of the laptops and the police have not recorded the further statement of the complainant regarding particulars of the laptops for identity of the same.
13. CW-2 is examined as PW-1. He is a witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P-1. He has deposed that on 18-6- 2014 he had gone to the police station in connection with theft of his mobile and police obtained his signature to Ex.P-1. He was treated as hostile by the prosecution and he has denied the visit of police to the house of PW-2 in connection with theft and conducting mahazar as per Ex.P-1. Hence PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case with regard to the spot mahazar Ex.P-1. 7 CC.No.17479/2016
14. CW-5 is examined as PW-3. He has deposed that the police had seized two laptops from the accused near Naganeshi Enterprises, BTM Layout and he affixed his signature to Ex.P-4 the true copy of the mahazar in Naganeshi Enterprises, BTM Layout. He has also identified the accused through VC and the photograph of the laptop as per Ex.P-3. He was not cross-examined by the accused.
15. CW-9 is examined as PW-4. He is the Head constable of Mico Layout police station and he has deposed that he was deputed to secure the accused in Cr.No.362/2014 along with CW-8. When they were on beat near BTM water Tank bus stand they found the accused in suspicious circumstances with a bag. When they questioned the accused he informed that bag contains two laptops and he had stolen the same. One laptop is of Lenovo company and another laptop is Dell company. They produced accused before CW-10, the Investigating officer. 8 CC.No.17479/2016 He has identified the photograph of the laptop as per Ex.P-3. It was suggested to him that accused was not in the possession of any laptops and he denies the same.
16. CW-11 the Investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet is examined as PW-5. He has deposed that he took up further investigation from CW-10 and he released the HP laptop and Acer Laptop to the respective owners and after verifying the papers he submitted the charge sheet. Hence PW-5 has not conducted any investigation in the matter except releasing the laptops to the interim custody of PW-2.
17. As seen from the mahazar Ex.P-4 the accused was taken to Naganeshi Enterprises which is a book shop at BTM Layout 2nd stage as per his voluntary statement and police have recovered two laptops one of the laptop is of black colour Lenovo laptop and another laptop is gray colour Acer company. The accused has informed that he 9 CC.No.17479/2016 has stolen the same. The laptops stolen from the house of PW-2 is HP laptop and Acer Laptop whereas the laptops seized under Ex.P-4 are Lelnovo laptop and Acer Laptop. No evidence is placed by the prosecution with regard to seizure of HP laptop from the possession of the accused or at the instance of the accused. Out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution CWs-3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are not secured and are not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of the witnesses to the seizure mahazar and the Investigating officer are fatal to the prosecution case. Though PW-2 claims that police have recovered the laptops from the possession of the accused, there are no eye witnesses to the theft that had taken place in the house of PW-2. PW-3 a witness to Ex.P-4 though has partly supported the prosecution case only one laptop is seized under Ex.P-4 belongs to PW-2 and it is not stated by the prosecution as to which is the laptop seized under Ex.P-4 in the presence of PW-3. Further there is no evidence with regard to the 10 CC.No.17479/2016 seizure of the other laptop. Hence the prosecution has failed to place material evidence by examining material witnesses to prove the seizure of both the laptops stolen from the house of PW-2 from the accused and has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of the finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC.
The accused who is produced under body warrant is ordered to be released if not required in any other case. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of May 2018).
(K.G. CHINTHA) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru city. 11 CC.No.17479/2016 Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
CW-2 PW-1 Gyan Prakash Ranjan CW-1 PW-2 P.C. Girish CW-5 PW-3 Devender Singh CW-9 PW-4 B.P. Jayaprakash CW-11 PW-5 M. Neelakanta
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Mahazar Ex.P-2 Spot mahazar Ex.P-3 Photograph Ex.P-4 Mahazar.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ACMM., Bengaluru.12 CC.No.17479/2016
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC.
The accused who is produced under body warrant is ordered to be released if not required in any other case. (Vide Separate Order) VI ACMM., Bengaluru.13 CC.No.17479/2016
14 CC.No.17479/2016