Bangalore District Court
State By K.S. Layout Police Station vs No. : 1. Smt. Usha on 25 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 25th day of OCTOBER 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.19169/2013
Complainant : State by K.S. Layout Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Smt. Usha,
W/o Naga,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing behind City College,
Near South End Part,
Jayanagar 7th Block,
Bengaluru.
2. Kaali
(Case against accused No.2 is split up)
(By Smt. Sujatha, advocate )
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S. Layout Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.457 and 380 of IPC.
2 C.C. No.19169/2013
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 01/01/2012, in the night, accused persons committed theft of cash belonging to C.W. 1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty, by illegally trespassing in to her house bearing No.4051, situated at 50 feet road, 16th Cross, within the limits of K.S. Layout police station and thereby committed aforesaid offences. Therefore, C.W.1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against accused persons. Thereafter, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn mahazars, seized cash involved in this case and subjected the same under P.F. No.66/2012, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 is on bail and she is represented through her counsel. Inspite of sufficient efforts, accused No.2 was not secured before this court. Hence, case against him is split up.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused No.1 as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 457 and 380 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
3 C.C. No.19169/2013
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused No.1 in the language known to her, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. Though, the prosecution in order to prove its case has cited as many as 13 witnesses, except C.W. 10 none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 9, 11 to 13 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation. It is to be observed that, the charge is framed in the year 2017 and till now C.W. 1 to 9, 11 to 13 have been secured and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Therefore, they have been discharged from deposing evidence.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused No.1 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein she has denied the incriminating evidence adduced against her and she has not chosen to lead her side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
4 C.C. No.19169/2013
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 01/01/2012, in the night, accused persons illegally trespassed in to the house of C.W. 1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty, bearing No.4051, situated at 50 feet road, 16 th Cross, within the limits of K.S. Layout police station and thereby committed house lurking trespass an offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons committed theft of cash belonging to C.W. 1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty, by illegally trespassing in to her house and committed an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC?
3. What Order?
10.My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.3 : As per final order for the following REASONS
11. Points No.1 and 2: Both these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
5 C.C. No.19169/2013
12. In this case, accused No.1 has been alleged of committing theft of cash belonging to C.W. 1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty, from her house bearing No.4051, situated at 50 feet road, 16 th Cross, within the limits of K.S. Layout police station.
13. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, has examined one official witness C.W. 10 as P.W. 1, who has deposed about apprehending of accused No.1, producing her before SHO and submitting her report, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.
14. Further, it is pertinent to note that, C.W. 1 Smt. Ranjitha Shetty, who has set the law into motion and according to prosecution in whose house accused No.1 committed theft of her cash, has not appeared before this court to put forth her case, which weakens the case of prosecution and in the absence of material evidence of complainant it would not be proper to hold accused No.1 as guilty minded.
15. That apart, though the prosecution has cited as many as 13 witnesses, except C.W. 10 none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 9, 11 to 13 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation. It is to be 6 C.C. No.19169/2013 observed that, on 30/08/3017, this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons, warrants and proclamation which can be seen from the order sheet. Therefore, C.W. 1 to 9, 11 to 13 have been discharged from deposing the evidence. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of accused No.1.
16. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.1 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
17.Point No.3: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.457 and 380 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.7 C.C. No.19169/2013
Interim custody of cash seized and subjected under P.F. No.66/2012, to the concerned applicant is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25 th day of October 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Madhumathi
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.8 C.C. No.19169/2013
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.457 and 380 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Interim custody of cash seized and subjected under P.F. No.66/2012, to the concerned applicant is made absolute.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.9 C.C. No.19169/2013