Bangalore District Court
State By Sampigehalli vs Md. Mansoorulla Hasan on 8 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri Rudolph Pereira B.Com., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 08th day of March 2017
C.C. No-13252/2014
Complainant : State by Sampigehalli
Police, Bengaluru
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Md. Mansoorulla Hasan
@ Mansoor s/o Md. Noorulla,
19 yrs, R/at Behind Mujamil
Masjid, Near 2nd Cross of
H.K.B.K. College Front Gate,
Dead End Right Side House,
Govindapura, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru.
2. Syed Suhail Athif @
Suhail @ Atheef - Split up
Date of offence : 12-04-2013
Offence : U/S 392, 394 of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused No-1 Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused No-1 Acquitted
Date of Order : 08-03-2017
2 CC No.13252/2014
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.I. of Sampigehalli P.S., Bengaluru has
filed this charge sheet against accused persons for the
offences punishable under Section 392 and 394 of
IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 12-04-2013 at 4-00 p.m., CW1 Manjula was
proceeding with CW2 Akshatha in Pleasure Vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-05-HQ-4419 Opposite
Muneendra Kumar House Road, Kogilu Layout,
Jakkur Post, Bengaluru from Kogilu Layout towards
Yelahanka. At that time, the accused persons came in
a stolen Motor Cycle and the accused No-2 who was
driving the vehicle had attempted to rob the gold neck
chain of CW2. The accused No-1 by observing that
CW2 was not wearing any neck chain had robbed the
gold mangalya chain weighing about 32 grams of the
pillion rider CW1 and both the accused persons had
3 CC No.13252/2014
flew away from the spot by pushing the vehicle of
CW2 aside, as a result of which CW2 sustained simple
bleeding injuries. Thereby the accused persons have
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No-1 is on bail. The case against
accused No-2 is split up vide orders of this court dated
05-11-2016. After furnishing the copies of charge
sheet, charge was framed, read over and explained to
the accused No-1 by my then learned predecessor.
Accused No-1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has
examined in all five witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.5
and got marked the documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.8.
The learned Sr.APP has given up CW8. The other
witnesses i.e., CW2 to 6, 10 and 13 did not turn up
before this court inspite of coercive steps taken by this
court. Hence by rejecting the prayer of learned
4 CC No.13252/2014
Sr.APP, this court dropped the said witnesses.
Thereafter, the accused No-1 is examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating
evidence and submitted that he has no defence
evidence.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
Sr.APP and the learned counsel for accused No-1.
6. Herein, the complainant Manjula appeared
before the court as PW4. Of course, she has deposed
about the alleged incident of robbery dated 12-04-
2013, sustaining of injuries by herself and CW2,
lodging of Ex.P6 complaint, preparation of Ex.P4 spot
mahazar by the police. She has further deposed that
after few days, the Sampigehalli Police called and told
her to go to Amruthahalli P.S., wherein they showed
her the mangalya chain and 20 persons. It is to be
noted here that, PW4 has clearly stated that she could
not identify them and also she has failed to identify the
5 CC No.13252/2014
accused No-1 before the court as one among the
persons, who was involved in the alleged incident. The
learned Sr.APP has cross-examined this witness by
treating her as partly hostile. But during cross-
examination also, she has reiterated that regarding
identification of accused persons, she has not given
any statement to the police as per Ex.P7. The above
evidence of PW4 has demolished the case of
prosecution. Hence, I am of the view that the evidence
of this witness is not fit for consideration.
7. The prosecution has examined four police
officials namely Babu, Anand, K.Nanjundegowda and
K.T.Nagaraju as PW1 to 3 and 5 respectively. PW2
has deposed about apprehension of accused on 26-11-
2013 and production before the S.H.O. PW3 and 5
have deposed about the preliminary investigation of
this case from the stage of receiving information about
the alleged robbery, conducting of the spot mahazar,
6 CC No.13252/2014
rough sketch etc.,. PW1 has deposed about recording
the voluntary statement of accused No-1, recovery of
robbed property etc., and transfer of case file to
Sampigehalli P.S. on the point of jurisdiction. PW1
has identified the photograph of robbed property as per
Ex.P3. Herein, it is to be noticed that as there is no
clear cut and sufficient evidence on record to prove the
alleged acts of accused No-1, the evidence of PW1 to
3 and 5 is not helpful to the prosecution.
8. Further, it is worthy to note here that, in
theft/robbery cases, what is required to be proved by
prosecution is that the nexus between stolen/robbed
article and accused. But, the prosecution has failed to
secure the presence of seizure mahazar witnesses
inspite of coercive steps taken by this court. Also the
prosecution has failed to secure the presence of CW2
Akshatha, the injured and along with whom the
complainant PW4 was proceeding on the alleged date,
7 CC No.13252/2014
time and place. The non-examination of seizure
panchas and CW2 is fatal to the case of prosecution. In
this view of fact, the whole case of prosecution has
been rendered weak and hence this court does not
deem it proper to base conviction on the evidence
available on record. I hold that viewing from multi
dimensional angle, there is no sufficient, positive and
material evidence to bring home the guilt of accused
No-1. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 392 and 394 of IPC.
His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. 8 CC No.13252/2014 The office is hereby directed to register a separate split up case against accused No-2 as per order dated 05-11-2016 and keep this case file in the split up case, without fail.
The PW4 shall produce the gold chain covered under Ex.P3 before this court in the split up case against accused No-2, as and when directed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 08-03-2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Babu
P.W.2 : Anand
9 CC No.13252/2014
P.W.3 : K.Nanjundegowda
P.W.4 : Manjula
P.W.5 : K.T.Nagaraju
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Voluntary Statement of accused No-1 (true copy) Ex.P.2 : Seizure Mahazar (true copy) Ex.P.3 : Photograph Ex.P.4 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.6 : Complaint Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW4 Ex.P.8 : F.I.R.
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.10 CC No.13252/2014
08-03-2017 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 392 and 394 of IPC.
His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. The office is hereby directed to register a separate split up case against accused No-2 as per order dated 05-11-2016 and keep this case file in the split up case, without fail.
The PW4 shall produce the gold chain covered under Ex.P3 before 11 CC No.13252/2014 this court in the split up case against accused No-2, as and when directed.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.