Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The 4) T.K. Jayarajan vs S/O. Manukutti on 13 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 13th day of January 2017.
Present : Sri.Mohamed Ashraf Aris, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO. 29228/2009
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 29228-09
2. The date of 24.02.09
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the State Koramangala P.S.
complainant
4. Name of the 4) T.K. Jayarajan,
accused S/o. Manukutti, 56 years,
R/at Kungnikulam Parambu,
Govindapuram Post,
Koyikod, Kerala State.
5. The offence U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 411
complained of or of IPC.
proved
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his
examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused-4 is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 13/01/2017
For the following:-
2 CC No.29228-09
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PI, Koramangala P.S. against the accused -1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
Accused- 4 with the knowledge purchased the golden and diamond ornaments from accused-1 and 2 and committed the theft of the same on 24.02.09 at No.123B, 16A Main Road, 5th Cross, 4th Block Koramangala and thereby committed the alleged offence.
3. Accused-4 is on bail. Case against the accused-1 to 3 is split-up. Copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused-4. The accused-4 pleaded not guilty to the charge read over to them. Prosecution examined PWs:1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 7. Accused- 4 has been questioned u/sec.313 of Cr.PC., accused-4 has not led any defence evidence.
3 CC No.29228-09
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 that accused- 4 with the knowledge purchased the golden and diamond ornaments from accused-1 and 2 and committed the theft of the same on 24.02.09 at No.123B, 16A Main Road, 5th Cross, 4th Block Koramangala and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC.?
2) What order?
6. The Answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the negative 4 CC No.29228-09 Point No.2 As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:-
CW.1 has been examined as PW.1. He has stated in his evidence that on 24/2/2009 he and his mother had been to his relatives house by locking the house and that at about 10.15 p.m. when he came back to his house he found that the main door was break open and that the gold jewels and silver articles, which were kept in the first floor of the house were missing and therefore he went to the Police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1.
Further, he has stated that the police came to the spot and drew the mahajar as per Ex.P2 and that after 8 months police called him to the police station and showed the stolen articles, which were released to his interim custody.
The photograph of the articles is marked as Ex.P3.5 CC No.29228-09
8.CW.3, who is the father of C.W.1 is examined as PW.2. He has also stated in the same manner. Further he has stated that and at the time of theft he had been to Chennai and on the next day morning he came to Bengaluru, he gave the letter to DCP about the list of the stolen articles and the same is marked as Ex.P4.
9.CW.4, who is the an attesting witness to the spot mahazar is examined as PW.3. He has stated about attesting the spot mahazar at the spot.
10.CW.6, who is said to be witness in respect of seizure mahazar has been examined as PW.4, but he has turned hostile. He has denied about seizure of articles from the possession of the accused in his presence at the shop of Satyanarayana Jewellers. He has stated that the police had taken him to Narayan Jewelry shop on 9/7/2009, which is not the case of the prosecution. He has denied that the 6 CC No.29228-09 police conducted search of the accused persons and found 5 golden articles and seized them under mahazar Ex.P5.
11.CW.13 has been examined as PW.5. He has stated in his evidence that, on 19/07/2009 police called him to the police station and conducted the mahazar and seized one golden padaka, golden long chain and golden necklaces from some culprits and drew the mahajar as per Ex.P6. However, he has stated that at the time of the mahazar the police have also shown this accused.
12.CW.21, who is an attesting witness to Ex.P7 has been examined as PW.6. He has stated that on 09/10/2009 police came along with accused to the shop of CW.22 and had admitted the transaction and on admitting the transaction, CW.22 has produced gold waist dob and gold arm belt before the police and the police seized them in his presence and drew the mahajar as per Ex.P7. He 7 CC No.29228-09 has stated that the Ex.P3 is the photograph of the said property.
13.CW.22 has been examined as PW.7. He has stated in his evidence that, he is having a jewellary shop at Palakkad in Kerala and that on 09/10/2009 around 7-8 p.m. the Bengaluru police came to accused shop and on identifying the accused he produced the gold waist dob weighing about 411 grams and golden arm belt weighing about 68 grams before the police and the police seized in his presence and drew the mahajar as per Ex.P7. He has identified the photograph Ex.P3.
14.The counsel for accused-4 has submitted no cross- examination on behalf of accused-4 in respect of PW.6 and
7. The allegation against the accused-4 is that the accused-1 to 3 committed theft and sold some items to this accused-4. The evidence of PW.6 and 7 is not concerned with accused-4. The evidence of PW.4 is not 8 CC No.29228-09 useful for the prosecution, since he has not stated anything about this accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW.5 is also not useful for the prosecution against this accused. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 speaks about the theft in the house of CW.1.However, the same is not sufficient to connect this accused with the crime or to prove that this accused has received the stolen items knowing that those items are stolen articles. The other witnesses did not turn up in spite of taking coercive steps. Hence, they were dropped. The evidence against this accused is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
15. Point No.2:- In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused-4 is hereby acquitted of the offence U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC.9 CC No.29228-09
Bail bond of accused-4 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Office is hereby directed to keep this file along with split-up case, registered against accused-1 to 3.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of January 2017.) (Mohamed Ashraf Aris) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Vivek
2. Sridhar
3. K.Raghavan
4. Ravindra
5. Chennabasavaiah
6. Srirangan Mali
7. Sanjay.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Spot Mahazar
3. Photos
4. Letter
5. Seizure mahazar 10 CC No.29228-09
6. Seizure mahazar
7. Seizure mahazar
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- -NIL -
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.
11 CC No.29228-0912 CC No.29228-09 13 CC No.29228-09 14 CC No.29228-09 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused-4 is hereby acquitted of the offence U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 411 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused-4 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Office is hereby directed to keep this file along with split-up case, registered against accused-1 to 3.
VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
15 CC No.29228-0916 CC No.29228-09