Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.2 : Gopi on 5 April, 2022
KABC010182852021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 5 th day of April 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R.Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 1022/2021
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Halasurugate Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.2 : Gopi, S/o. Vijaya,
Aged:22 years, R/o. No. 21,
Pampamahakavi road,
Near Gangamma Temple,
Ist Cross, Shankara puram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri GK/HTP Advocate)
2 SC No.1022/2021
1 Date of commission of offence 10/10/2013
2 Date of report of offence 11/10/2013
3 Date of arrest of the accused 11/10/2013
4 Date of release of accused on Accused is in judicial
bail custody.
5 Date of commencement of 28/02/2022
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 31/03/2022
7 Name of the complainant Sri. D.C. Manju, PSI.
8 Offences complained of Sections 399 & 402
of I.P.C.
9 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 found
not guilty.
10 Order of Sentence As per final order
3 SC No.1022/2021
JUDGMENT
This is a split up charge-sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Halasuru Gate Police Station against the accused No. 2 Gopi for the offences punishable Under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under:
That on 10.10.2013 at about 10.45 p.m. the complainant D.C.Manju the then PSI of Halasuru gate P.S. received a credible information that near public Toilet of Shikshakara sadana at cubbon pet 15 th cross, within the limits of Halasuru gate P.S. Bengaluru city around 8 persons holding deadly weapons like Long, button knives, Iron rods, Cricket bats, clubs and pocket full of Chilly powder are sitting in a Maruthi zen car bearing No. KA-05/MB-5396 and Honda activa 2 wheeler 4 SC No.1022/2021 bearing No. KA-41-X-4501 are hatching plan and making preparation to commit the offence of dacoity by way of stopping the persons and robbering their valuables. Immediately the complainant after securing the independent witnesses as panchas and if briefing them has conducted a raised on the spot along with his staff. He found the accused in possession of deadly weapons and they were making preparation to commit the dacoity and they assembled on the above place only for the purpose of committing dacoity. Immediately he arrested those persons on the spot including accused No.2 and two of them fled away in 2 wheeler. The complainant drawn a mahazar on the spot and seized the weapons referred to above from the accused. Later along with the accused and seized articles, he returned to the PS and submitted a complaint/report as per Ex.P-
2. Pursuant to which a case was registered in Crime No. 312/2013 of Halasuru gate Police station for the offences 5 SC No.1022/2021 punishable under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC. After detail investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid down the Chargesheet.
3. As noted above it is a split up charge-sheet filed against accused No.2. Hence, after completing the initial formalities, this case is committed to this court as required U/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. as the offence alleged are triable by the court of Sessions. Accused is in judicial custody. He is represented by a advocate. Therefore after hearing both sides, Charge for the aforesaid offences is framed against accused No.2., the same is read over and explained to him. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all 6 witnesses as Pws 1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-3. Material Objects No. 1 to 9 are also marked for the prosecution.6 SC No.1022/2021
5. After the evidence of prosecution is closed, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused has denied every incriminating circumstances appearing against him. But he has not led any evidence in his defence. Total denial of case of prosecution is the defence of the accused.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The following points emerge for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 10.10.2013 at about 10.45 p.m. accused No.2 along with other accused were present near the public Tailet of Shikshakara Sadana at Cubbon pet 15 th cross, within the limits of Halasuru gate PS., by holding deadly weapons like long, button knives, rods, Cricket bats, clubs and a pocket full of Chilly powder ect., sitting in a Maruthi 7 SC No.1022/2021 zen car bearing No. KA-05.MB-5396 and Honda activa bearing No. KA-41-X-4501 has hatching plan and making preparation to commit the offence of dacoity of the pertsons coming to the said place and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.2 was one of the 5 or more persons who had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity by holding deadly weapons and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 402 of IPC?
(3) What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
8 SC No.1022/2021
REASONS
9. Point No's.1 and 2:- As these points are interlinked to each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence on record.
10. As noted supra it is the specific case of prosecution that on 10.10.2013 complainant D.C.Manju (the then PSI of Halasuru gate Police station) had received credible information at about 10.45 p.m. to the effect that around 6-8 persons have assembled in a Maruthi zen car bearing No. KA-05-MB-5396 and also Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No. KA-41-X-4501 near public Toilet of Shikshakara sadana at cubbon pet 15th cross within the limits of Halasuru gate Police station by holding deadly weapons like Iron rod, button knife, wooden club, chilly powder packet etc. and they 9 SC No.1022/2021 were hatching a plan and making preparation to commit dacoity also they have assembled on the spot with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity. Hence immediately by securing 2 independent witnesses ,he conducted a raid on the spot and and arrested 6 accused persons with weapons. As they failed to give proper account of their presence on the above place, therefore the complainant arrested 6 persons and 2 of them ran away from the spot in a two wheeler and he also seized the weapons by drawing a mahazar. Later he went back to police station with the accused and mahazar and filed a complaint as per Ex.P-2 against those persons alleging commission of offence U/secs. 399 and 402 of IPC. Hence based on the said complaint a case was registered and after a detail investigation the present charge-sheet is filed.
10 SC No.1022/2021
11. As noted above this is a split up chargesheet. The original Sessions case was S.C.No. 219/2014. Hence the original file in the above case is secured.
12. To prove its allegations the prosecution has examined in all 6 witnesses including the complainant D.C.Manju as Pw-6. The only independent witness examined by the prosecution is Pw-3 Munna said to be the attesting witness to Ex.P-1 Mahazar under which recovery is effected. Hence keeping the aforesaid facts in mind it is necessary to analyse the evidence on record.
13. The complainant D.C.Manju is examined as Pw-1. In his evidence he has stated that from 4.2.2012 to 20.11.2013 he was working as PSI of Halasuru gate P.S. It is further deposed by Pw-6 that on 10.10.2013 at about 10.45 p.m. when he was in station as SHO, he received credible information about present case. Immediately he secured the staff and 2 independent 11 SC No.1022/2021 witnesses and explained them about the information and he conducted a raid on the aforesaid spot. It is the specific evidence of Pw-6 that after reaching the spot they stood at a distance, had a discreet watch on the group. Pw-6 requested Pw-1 Jagadish to go near the spot and confirm the presence of culprits with weapons. Accordingly, after going ahead Pw-1 made signal by confirming the information. Thus it is spoken by Pw-1 that immediately a raid was conducted and 6 persons were apprehended, 2 of the culprits fled away from the spot in a two wheeler. On enquiry as the above persons did not gave proper reply, therefore he made further enquiry, at that time they revealed their names and they were possessing weapons like Wooden clubs, long, button knife, Iron rod, Chilly powder etc., Therefore he conducted a mahazar as per Ex.P-1 and seized the above articles. Later he returned to the P.S. and filed a 12 SC No.1022/2021 complaint as per Ex.P-2. He has identified his signature which are marked at Ex.P-2(a).
14. This witness also stated about examination and recording of statements of panchas on 11.10.2013 and recorded their statements. He also stated that accused No.1 to 6 including the present accused have given their voluntary statements which did not led to discovery of any articles connecting to this case. This is the evidence given by Pw-6 in the chief-examination.
15. The Cross-examination of this witness goes to show that the place of occurrence is very nearer to Halasuru gate P.S despite the same it is stated by Pw-6 that he went to the spot with his staff and panchas in two private cars. It is admitted by Pw-6 that he has not recorded the registration number of private vehicles and the names of the drivers. Going one step ahead, Pw-6 13 SC No.1022/2021 has deposed to the effect that he did not make any enquiry regarding who is the owner of these vehicles. According to this witness the place where the alleged incident took place is a very busy area and there is no chances of committing dacoity by an individual. If that is the case how he found the accused in the above place is not explained by the complainant.
16. In so far as panchas is concerned, Pw-6 has admitted that Pw-3 Munna is the resident of Siddaiah road which is 4-5 K.Ms away from the P.S. The other pancha is from Kengeri area, which is 8-10 kms away from the station. Despite the same it is stated by Pw-6 that he secured panchas through one of his staff. Thus it becomes very clear that Pw-6 has not taken the help of local witnesses. Securing panchas who are at a long distance from the P.S. it appears to be little fishy which is not explained by Pw-6. He admits that he did not 14 SC No.1022/2021 make any efforts to secure any local persons as attesting witnesses to the mahazar. This evidence of Pw-6 create a doubt in the mind of the court about the veracity of the case of prosecution.
17. According to Pw-6 he reached the spot at around 11 p.m. and conducted mahazar between 11.30 p.m. to 12 a.m. later he went to the P.S. and filed a complaint.
18. To corroborate the statement of this witness prosecution has examined Pw-3 Munna who is the only independent witness to the prosecution case. In his evidence Pw-3 has deposed to the effect that on 11.10.2013 when he was in garage at about 2 p.m. two police men came there and requested him to come to P.S. Thereafter the P.I. obtained his signature at Ex.P-1(a) mahazar. He clearly admits that police did not conduct any mahazar in his presence in that place. Thus the only 15 SC No.1022/2021 independent witness to the case of prosecution has failed to support the evidence pf Pw-6. Thus the evidence of Pw-6 has no any corroborative evidence.
19. Pw-1 Jagadish and Pw-2 Rajesh are the raiding party members. According to Pw-2 the raiding party reached the spot at about 11.00 p.m. But according to Pw-2 raiding party reached the spot at about 11.30 p.m., Thus 2 witnesses have not spoken that they had been to said spot in two private cars. This is clear from the admission given by these witnesses in the cross- examination. Though these witnesses were present, their signatures were not obtained on Ex.P-1 Mahazar. Pw-6 has failed to explain why the signatures of Pw-1 and 2 was not taken on the seizure mahazar. Thus the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 are quite contrary to the evidence given by Pw-6. Hence they are not safe to rely upon to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. 16 SC No.1022/2021
20. Pw-4 Chikka Venkataiah is the I.O. who has spoken about investigational aspects of the matteer. But unfortunately the prosecution has failed to place credible evidence on record to prove the allegations made against the accused. In such circumstances solitary evidence of Pw-4 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
21. Pw-5 has spoken about filing of charge-sheet. According to him after receiving the further investigation of the case, he verified the papers and submitted the charge-sheet against 6 persons for the above offences. In the cross-examination he admits that he has not conducted any independent investigation to cross-check the investigation made by the previous I.O. Therefore the evidence of Pw-5 is also not much helpful to prove the allegations made against the accused No.2. 17 SC No.1022/2021
22. Thus from the discussion of evidence of Pws- 1 to 6, it becomes it very clear that they are not helpful to prove the ingredients of offences punishable U/sec. 399 and 402 of IPC. Thus the evidence of above witnesses are not sufficient to prove the allegations made against accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence in my opinion accused No.2 deserves benefit of doubt and the same is accorded to him. Hence for the reasons and discussions made above, I answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
Point No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.2 Gopi S/o. Vijaya for the offences punishable U/secs. 399 and 402 of IPC. 18 SC No.1022/2021
The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
MO.1 to 9 shall be retained till the disposal of pending cases against accused No. 4, 5, 7 to 9. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 5th day of April, 2022) (Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution side:
P.W.1 Jagadish
P.W.2 Rajesh
P.W.3 Munna
P.W.4 Chikka Venkataiah
P.W.5 C.V.Deepak
P.W.6 D.C.Manju,
19 SC No.1022/2021
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar (In SC No.291/2014) Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.2(b) Signature Ex.P.3 FIR Ex.P.3(a) Signature
List of material objects marked for the prosecution side:
MO.1 Iron Long MO.2 Mobile phone MO.3 Button knife MO.4 Mobile G-5 MO.5 Iron rod MO.6 Mobile Nokia MO.7 Criket bat MO.8 Wooden Club MO.9 Chilly powder pocket
List of witnesses examined for the defence side:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defence side:
Nil 20 SC No.1022/2021 List of material objects marked for defence side:
Nil LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.21 SC No.1022/2021
Judgment is pronounced to-day in the open court, vide separate Judgement.22 SC No.1022/2021
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.2 Gopi S/o. Vijaya for the offences punishable U/secs. 399 and 402 of IPC.
The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
MO.1 to 9 shall be retained till the disposal of pending cases against accused No. 4, 5, 7 to 9.
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.23 SC No.1022/2021