Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

4. Name Of The Accused 1.Ashok Reddy vs 2 Are Acquitted on 17 December, 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.

           Dated this the 17th    day of December 2016.

         Present: Sri.Mohamed Ashraf Aris, B.A., LL.B.
               VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

                 C.C. NO. 16080/2011

    JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
   1.   Sl. No. of the Case      16080/2011

   2. The date of                27/5/2010
      commission of the
      offence
   3. Name of the                State by R.T. Nagar P.S.
      complainant

   4. Name of the accused 1.Ashok Reddy, S/o. Chowda
                          Reddy, Aged about 29 years,
                          No.15/1, 3rd Floor, 5th Main
                          Road, 5th Cross, CPV Block,
                          Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar,
                          Bengaluru.

                                 2.Bujji Babu, S/o.
                                 Devadanam,
                                 Aged about 29 years, No.73, I
                                 Main, Binny Mill Road,
                                 Ganganagar Extension, R.T.
                                 Nagar, Bengaluru.

   5. The offence                U/sec.392 of IPC.
      complained of or
      proved
                               2            C.C. NO. 16080/2011




     6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
        and his examination

     7. Final Order               Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.PC
                                  Accused-1and 2 are acquitted.

     8. Date of such order        17/12/2016
        For the following:-

                          JUDGMENT

This is the charge sheet filed by the PI of R.T. Nagar Police station against the accused-1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.392 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

On 27/5/2010 at about 2 p.m., accused no. 1 and 2, together came on a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-ET-744 in front of the house bearing No.362, 2nd block, within the jurisdiction of R.T.Nagar P.S. and snatched the gold chains worth of Rs.80,000/-

from the neck of C.W.2, who was proceeding in front of 3 C.C. NO. 16080/2011 the said house and thereby committed the alleged offence.

3. Accused-1 and 2 are on bail. Copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge read over to them. Prosecution examined PWs:1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 5 and MO-1 and 2. Accused have been questioned u/sec. 313 of Cr.PC., accused have not led any defence evidence.

4. Heard arguments from both the sides .

5. The points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt on 27/5/2010 at about 2 p.m., accused no. 1 and 2, together came on a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-ET-744 in front of the house bearing 4 C.C. NO. 16080/2011 No.362, 2nd block, within the jurisdiction of R.T.Nagar P.S. and snatched the gold chains worth of Rs.80,000/- from the neck of C.W.2, who was proceeding in front of the said house and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.392 of IPC.?

2) What order?

6. The Answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1 In the negative Point No.2 As per final order for the following:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:-

The witnesses examined by the prosecution are CW.1, 2, 10, 12, 14, who are examined as PW.1 to 5, CW.17 is reported to be dead.

8.CW.10 has been examined as PW.5, who is the Head Constable of Vidyaranapura police station, he has stated about tracing the accused pertaining to a crime of Vidyaranapura police station in Cr.No.309/2010. He has stated that on 20/12/2010 he and CW.11 to 15 were deputed to trace the accused and vehicle in Crime No.309/2010 and accordingly at 4.40 p.m., they found 4 persons standing in suspicious manner along with 2 bikes near Pooja Jewelers in Vidyaranapura Main Road and they revealed their names and address. He has stated that the accused-1 and 2 of this case were among them. He has stated that on search one gold mangalya chain was found in the right bag of accused-1 and he did not give satisfactory answer regarding the possession of the same. Further he has stated that, he brought those persons to the police station and gave a report as per Ex.P5. 6 C.C. NO. 16080/2011

9.CW.12 has been examined as PW.3. He is also a Head Constable of Vidyaranapura police station, who had gone along with PW.5. He has also stated the same facts.

10.CW.14 has been examined as PW.4 is the Police Constable of Vidyaranapura police station, who has gone along with PW.5. He has also deposed in the same manner as deposed by PW.5.

11.CW.1 has been examined as PW.1. He has stated in his evidence that on 27.05.2010 at 1.50 p.m. his wife i.e., CW.2 called him and informed that somebody snatched her gold chain and mangalya chain when she was walking near BDA Complex. He has further stated that he went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police came to the spot and drew the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. Further he has stated that on 1.1.2011 Vidyaranapura police called him to the police station and showed the stolen chain, which he identified and showed 2 7 C.C. NO. 16080/2011 persons, but he has stated that he cannot identify those persons. The mangalya chain and a gold chain are marked as MO-1 and 2. He has been treated partly hostile and cross-examined by learned Sr.APP, but he has denied about identification of the accused and giving the further statement as per Ex.P3.

12.CW.2 has been examined as PW.2. She has stated that on 27/05/2010 about 1.30 p.m. she was walking towards her house, 2 persons came in a motorcycle near BDA Complex and snatched the mangalya chain and another gold chain and ran away. She has stated that she could not identify those persons. She has further stated that after some days, police called her to the police station, where she identified the chains, but she is not able to identify the accused. She has been treated partly hostile. She has denied about giving statement before the police as per Ex.P.4 8 C.C. NO. 16080/2011

13. The important witnesses CW.1 and 2, who are examined as PW.1 and 2 have not identified the accused and have turned hostile. The evidence of PW.3 to 5, who were the police officials is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. PW.3 to 9 did not turn up in spite of taking coercive steps and they were dropped. CW.17 is reported to be dead. CW.11, 15, 16 and 18 also did not turn up in spite of taking coercive steps and they were dropped. The evidence of PW.1 to 5 is not sufficient to prove the guild of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and point no.1 is answered in the negative.

14. Point No.2:- In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused-1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.392 of IPC.

Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled.

Interim order in respect of MO-1 and 2 in favour of applicant is made absolute.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of December 2016.) (Mohamed Ashraf Aris) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.

Annexure:

1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:

1. Padmanabhan

2. Smt.Shantha Kumari

3. Nagabhushan

4. Ravikumar

5. G.V.Rajanna

2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:

1. Complaint

2. Spot mahazar 10 C.C. NO. 16080/2011

3. Further statement of PW.1

4. Statement of PW.2

5. Report.

3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-

MOs:

1. Golden mangalya chain

2. Golden Chain.

4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -

VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.

12 C.C. NO. 16080/2011