Bangalore District Court
State By vs Murugan @ Shiva Kumar S/O.Late on 1 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 1st day of February 2022
PRESENT: Sri.M.R.WADEYAR,
B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.53650/2016
Complainant - State by, Police Inspector
Banaswadi Police Station
Represented by Ld.Sr.APP
/vs/
Accused 1. Murugan @ Shiva Kumar S/o.late
Nagaiah, 48 yrs. R/a.Sira thopu, Baby
Talkies Road, Tamil Nadu - Reported as
dead, hence case against A.1 is abated.
2. Dinakaran S/o.Vidyalingam, 28 yrs.
R/o.Tamil Nadu - absconded and no
chargesheet against him.
3. Suresh S/o.Paneer Selvam r/a.No.226-F,
Sira Thopu, Baby Talkies road, Tiravarur
Road, Tamil Nadu.
Represented by Sri.TMR, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The P.I of Banaswadi police station has filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable u/S.454 and 380 of IPC.
2 CC No.53650/2016
2. The brief facts of the case is as under:
That on 16/8/2014 at about 12.00 PM when CW.1 by locking his house at No.10, ground floor, I Cross, Erappa Layout, Subbaiahanapalya had gone to Sarjapura, A.3 along with absconding A.2 and deceased A.1 committed lurking tresspass into the said house of CW.1 by opening the lock of the door with duplicate key and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver articles worth Rs.45,000/-, sony camera, pendrive, pen torch, HP laptop bag and Rs.6,000/- belonging to CW.1 kept in his house, which he noticed on his return at about 7.00 PM, on very day he rushed to Banaswadi police station and informed to the concerned SHO.
3. On the basis written information given by the CW.1, Cr. No.448/2014 is registered by Banaswadi police for the offences punishable u/S.454, 380 of IPC, conducted panchanama, recorded the statement of witnesses, investigated into the matter, after completion of investigation filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the alleged offences.
4. After receipt of the chargesheet, cognizance is taken for the alleged offences and registered this criminal case against accused Nos.1 and 3. A.1 is reported as dead during the pendency of the case, 3 CC No.53650/2016 hence case against A.1 is abated. A.3 is secured under body warrant in this case and he is released on bail through Sri.TMR, Advocate, but very accused is involved in some other cases, so that inspite of issuance of release intimation he is not released from the JC, so that accused has faced trial from the JC. section 207 of Cr.P.C. is complied, after hearing charge is framed for the offences punishable u/S. 454, 380 of IPC against accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the learned Sr.APP has examined 2 witnesses as Pws.1 and 2 and got marked 2 documents at Exs.P1 and P2. Inspite of issuance of summons and warrants, rest of the witnesses are not secured and not examined before this court. The statement of accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. recorded, wherein he has denied the entire evidence of the prosecution and submitted that he has no defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments submitted by Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records, then the following points arise for determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 16/8/2014 at about 12.00 PM when CW.1 by locking his house at No.10, ground floor, I Cross, Erappa Layout, Subbaiahanapalya had gone 4 CC No.53650/2016 to Sarjapura, A.3 along with absconding A.2 and deceased A.1 committed lurking tresspass into the said house of CW.1 by opening the lock of the door with duplicate key thereby committed the offence punishable u/S.454 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the above said place, date and time accused committed theft of gold ornaments and silver articles worth Rs.45,000/-, sony camera, pendrive, pen torch, HP laptop bag and Rs.6,000/- belonging to CW.1 kept in his house, thereby committed the offence punishable u/S.380 of IPC?
3. What order?
7. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - In the Negative, Point No.2 - In the Negative, Point No.3 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: The evidence and facts of the above point Nos.1 and 2 are inter-related to each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence, I am taking the above Point Nos.1 and 2 for my common discussion.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 16/8/2014 at about 12.00 PM when CW.1 by locking his house at No.10, ground floor, I Cross, Erappa Layout, Subbaiahanapalya had gone to 5 CC No.53650/2016 Sarjapura, A.3 along with absconding A.2 and deceased A.1 committed lurking trespass into the said house of CW.1 by opening the lock of the door with duplicate key and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver articles worth Rs.45,000/-, Sony camera, pendrive, pen torch, HP laptop bag and Rs.6,000/- belonging to CW.1 kept in his house, which he noticed on his return at about 7.00 PM and thereby committed the alleged offences.
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined CW1 and 10 as PW1 and 2, wherein PW1 has deposed that, he is a retired employee since 1992 to 2018, he was a residing in a rental house behind the Syndicate Bank, within the jurisdiction of the Banaswadi P.S. During their absence in between 2 to 5 PM somebody have break up the their house lock and halmera and committed the theft of two golden rings, a Sony Camara two silver plants and other articles, said fact came to his knowledge at about 06.00 PM after returning to home. Hence he lodged the complaint before the banaswadi P.S as per Ex.P1 then police have visited the spot and conducted mahazar in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P2, there after gap of a month police have shown a person stating that, he has committed the theft colluding with another persons and given a piece of gold and not given any 6 CC No.53650/2016 other articles. Treating hostail to the prosecution case considering the submission made by Lr. Sr. APP., permission is granted for cross- examination, wherein admits that, police have shown the A1/Murugan but denied that, police have returned all other above said articles stolen from his home. In cross-examination by the counsel for accused admits that, he do not know the contains for the panchanama as per the instruction of the police, he has signed his not having documents pertains to the so called stolen articles, further admits that, for the first time he has been looking at this accused No. 1, and he has not seen him at any point of time prior to entering into the witness box. On going through the evidence of this witnesses, it goes to so that, he has deposed about commission of the offence by some persons in his absence but he has not identified the accused, further deposed that, police have not seized and returned the stolen articles in his favour.
11. Further PW2 deposed that, on 10.02.2016 along PC No.1507 brought the A3 from J.C and produced before the I.O. On going through the evidence available on record, it goes to so that, he has supported version of the prosecution, there is no doubt that, he has produced accused before the court as well as IO, but it is noticed the 7 CC No.53650/2016 there is no evidence of the complainant to prove that, very accused No. 3 has committed this offence, further there is no evidence about seizer of the stolen articles from the custody of the A3, further there is no eye witnesses for the alleged incident, Mahazar witnesses and also the I.O of this are not examined, so that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the alleged offence against accused, further when seizer of the stolen articles from the custody of the accused is not proved, under such circumstances it is not possible to hold that, very accused has committed the alleged offence.
12. So that, this court come to the conclusion that, there is no evidence against A3 for proof of the alleged offences punishable u/s 454 and 380 of IPC. Further there is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case, under such circumstances, naturally accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, so that giving the benefit of doubt in favour of accused, I have answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
13. POINT NO.3: For the reasons assigned and finding given on the above point Nos.1 and 2, court proceed to pass the following;
8 CC No.53650/2016
ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is acquitted for the alleged offences punishable u/S.454 and 380 of IPC.
A.3 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Issue release intimation accordingly.
Interim custody of the case property is made as absolute. (Dictated to the Steno directly on computer, typed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of February 2022).
(M.R.WADEYAR) XI Addl.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE-I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 N.Rangaswamy. PW.2 Mehaboob Saudar.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defence:
Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1.
ANNEXURE-II
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
-Nil-
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defence:
- Nil -
XI Addl.C.M.M.,Bangalore City.9 CC No.53650/2016
(Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide a separate) ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 is acquitted for the alleged offences punishable u/S.454, and 380 of IPC.
A.3 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Issue release intimation accordingly.
Interim custody of the case property is made as absolute.
(M.R.WADEYAR) XI Addl.C.M.M., BENGALURU.