Bangalore District Court
State By Pulakeshinagar Police vs Praveen on 27 March, 2015
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT-9, BANGALORE CITY.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2015.
PRESENT
SRI.JOSHI VENKATESH, B.A.LL.B, (Spl),
Presiding Officer, FTC.9.
SC.No.755/2014
Complainant : State by Pulakeshinagar Police
Station, Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
Accused : 1. Praveen, S/o Babu,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.8, 2nd Cross, Ashoknagar,
Shampura Main Road, K.G.Halli,
Bangalore.
2. Michael, S/o Das,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.11, 2nd Cross, Ashoknagar,
Shampura Main Road, K.G.Halli,
Bangalore.
3. Ranjith, S/o Ranganath,
Aged 24 years,
R/at Nanjappa Garden, Hines Road,
Frazer Town, Bangalore.
4. Anthony Raj @ Anthony,
S/o Zavier, Aged 26 years,
R/at No.4, 'G' Block,
Annaswamy Quarters, More Road,
Frazer Town, Bangalore.
2 SC.755 of 2014
5. Mathew @ Mathew Joseph,
S/o Ashok kumar
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.503-26, Sarojamma's
House, Mallappa Layout,
Babusapalya, Bangalore.
8. Shekar, S/o Gokula,
Aged 22 years,
R/at No.133, P.S.K. Naidu Road,
Cox Town, Bangalore.
1. Date of commission of offence : 11.01.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 11.01.2014
3. Arrest of Accused No.1, 2 & 3 : 11.01.2014
Arrest of Accused No.4 : o4.04.2014
Arrest of Accused No.5 and 8 : secured before
court under B/w
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Shivakumar
5. Date of commencement of trial: 12.01.2015
6. Date of closing of evidence : 20.03.2015
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.399 & 402 IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 to 5 & 8
JUDGMENT
1. Police Inspector of Pulakeshinagar Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 8 in Cr.No.11/2014 of their police station alleging that accused No.1 to 8 have committed the offences punishable U/Secs.399 & 402 of IPC.
3 SC.755 of 2014
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, on 10.01.2014 Cw.1, P.S.I., of Pulakeshinagar police station was on night patrolling duty. On 11.03.2014 at about 00.30 hours he received credible information stating that, in the road leading to Jeevanahalli to Kalpalli 6-7 persons assembled with deadly weapons in their hands along with Santro car and auto waiting for the public to commit offence of dacoity on them. Immediately he secured panchas and his staff, intimated them regarding the information received and proceeded to the spot information at 1.00 a.m. in private vehicle from their police station. They halted near the spot of information and watched. They saw that near Kalpalli grave yard one white colour Santro car was parked. Inside the car 2-3 persons were sitting and 2 persons were standing outside the car with rods in their hands. From the said car at some distance an Autorickshaw was parked and some persons were also in the said auto. Then on confirmation of the information raided on the said persons who were in car and auto. Some 4 SC.755 of 2014 persons ran away from the spot, even though they tried to catch them, they escaped from the spot. Accused no.1 to 3 i.e., Praveen, Michael and Ranjith were caught on the spot. On enquiry and search CW1 found Chopper, Rods, Mobile phone, knife and Longs with them. On enquiry accused persons told their names and also the names of the persons who ran away from the spot i.e. Anthony Raj, Mathew, Santhosh, Chakravarthy and Shekar. They also stated before CW1 that they were trying to commit offence of dacoity. CW1 recovered Mos.1 to 9 on the spot in presence of panchas. CW.1 also seized car and returned to the police station along with the seized material objects and accused No.1 to 3 at 2.45 a.m., then by showing himself as complainant registered case against the accused persons 1 to 8 for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 and 402 of IPC in Cr.No.11/2014 of their police station. Sent FIR to the Court as well as to his higher authority. Then handed over the investigation to Pw.4 Police Inspector of Pulakeshinagar police station who 5 SC.755 of 2014 continued the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 and 402 of IPC.
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, 11th ACMM, Bangalore registered case against accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 & 402 IPC. Accused No.3, 5 and 7 are released on bail. Accused No.1, 2, 4 and 8 remained in J.C. After bail accused No.7 fails to appear before the Court. Accordingly, case against accused No.7 is split-up and case against accused No.1 to 5 and 8 is proceeded with. After furnishing copies of charge sheet to them case is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences alleged are exclusively triable by court of sessions.
4. After receipt of case papers from the 11th A.C.M.M., Bangalore, Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered the case against accused No.1 to 5 and 8 in SC.No.755/2014 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the case papers, this Court issued intimation to the jail 6 SC.755 of 2014 authorities to produce accused No.1, 2, 4 and 8 before this Court who were in J.C. and issued summons to A.3 and 5 who were on bail. After their appearance A.1 to 5 and 8 were released on bail.
5. After hearing the Advocate for the A.1 to 5 and 8 and the prosecution, Charge framed, read over and explained to A.1 to 5 and 8 in Kannada language known to them. After knowing the same, A.1 to 5 and 8 not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined in all Pw.1 to Pw.6, got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 documents and got marked MOs.1 to 9. Inspite of several NBW issued to other witnesses prosecution fails to examine other witnesses. Hence prayer of prosecution to reissue NBW to CW.3 to 12 and 17 to 19 is rejected and closed the evidence of the prosecution.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 313 Cr.P.C., statement of accused No.1 to 5 and 8 is recorded. Accused No.1 to 5 and 8 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution case and submits no defence evidence.
7 SC.755 of 2014
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. The points those arise for consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 11.01.2014 at about 1.20 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Pulakeshinagar police station, A.1 to 5 and 8 along with other accused persons assembled in car and auto near Jeevanahalli to Kalpalli road, near the graveyard along with deadly weapons in their hands and making preparation to commit the offence of dacoity on the general public moving there and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.399 of IPC?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place of offence, A.1 to 5 and 8 along with other accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention assembled there in car, auto and deadly weapons in their hands and trying to commit an offence of dacoity and thereby committed the offence pun. U/Sec.402 of IPC ?
Point no.3 : What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative. Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
8 SC.755 of 2014 REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 and 2 :- In order to avoid repetition of facts, I proceed to discuss point nos.1 & 2 together in a single discussion. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, on 11.01.2014 at about 1.20 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Pulakeshinagar police station, Accused No.1 to 5 and 8 along with other accused persons assembled near Jeevanahalli to Kalpalli road, near the graveyard along with deadly weapons in their hands with car and auto and making preparation to commit the offence of dacoity on the general public moving there. Immediately CW.1 secured panchas and his staff and went to the spot of information and watched them and then raided on accused persons. Accused No.1 to 3 were caught on the spot. Other accused persons ran away from the spot. On enquiry accused No.1 to 3 revealed their names and on search CW.1 found Mos.1 to 9. CW1 recovered Mos.1 to 9 on the spot under panchaname in the presence of panchas. Thereafter returned to the police station and registered case against 9 SC.755 of 2014 accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 and 402 of IPC in Cr.No.11/2014 of their police station.
12. It is well settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused No.1 to 5 and 8 beyond all reasonable doubt. Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution, then the accused persons are very well entitled to get the said benefit of doubt in their favour. Let us see whether the prosecution is successful in proving its case against the accused.
13. In this case complainant is examined as Pw.5.
Pancha to Ex.P.1 panchaname is examined as Pw.2. The police official who is accompanied PW.5 to the raid is examined as Pw.1 and 3. Investigating officer is examined as Pw.4. Pw.6 is the H.C., who arrested accused No.4 and produced before Pw.4 for further investigation.
14. Ex.P.1 is spot panchaname, Ex.P.2 is report of Pw.5, Ex.P.3 is photo of the car seized by the police, Ex.P.4 is the complaint and Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R.
10 SC.755 of 2014
15. Pw.5 who is the complainant of this case. He stated before the Court that, on 10.1.2014 in the night he was on patrolling duty. On 11.1.2014 at 00.30 hours he received credible information that, at Jeevanahalli to Kalpalli road, near graveyard 6-7 persons assembled and parked car and auto rickshaw. They are having deadly weapons in their hands and preparing to commit an offence of dacoity on the general public moving there. Immediately he secured panchas and his staff and went to the spot of offence, watched them. In front of Santro car two persons were standing by holding rods. 3 persons were sitting inside the car. AT little distance to the car near Kalpalli graveyard auto was parked and 2-3 persons were there in the Auto. Immediately he conducted raid along with his staff and panchas on the said persons. A. 1 to 3 were caught on the spot. Other accused ran away from the spot. On enquiry and search of accused No.1 to 3 he found Mos.1 to 9. Accordingly they were seized under panchaname. Then he returned to the police station along with 11 SC.755 of 2014 accused No.1 to 3 and seized material objects and thereafter registered case against accused No.1 to 8. He identified the accused persons before the Court. Then handed over the investigation to Police Inspector of their police station. In the cross examination this witness stated that, after receipt of information he came to the police station, then entered the information in the case diary and went for raid. The said fact is not stated in the examination-in-chief or in the complaint Ex.P.1. PW.1 stated that, he has not recorded the statement of Harish who is the owner of the car. He has no idea in whose vehicle they have gone to the spot for raid. Suggestions made by the advocate for accused persons are denied by Pw.5 complainant. Evidence of PW.5 is not free from doubt.
16. Pw.2 is the pancha for Ex.P.1 panchaname. Another pancha to Ex.P.1 panchaname is not examined by the prosecution inspite of sufficient opportunity. PW.2 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even though Pw.2 pancha for Ex.P.1 12 SC.755 of 2014 panchaname is cross examined by treating as hostile by prosecution, absolutely nothing has been brought before the Court to show that in presence of Pw.2 and another pancha Ex.P.1 panchaname was conducted on the spot and recovered Mos.1 to 9 in the spot in the presence of accused No.1 to 3. Hence doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution. Hence the evidence of Pw.5 complainant in this case is not free from doubt. It is to be corroborated by evidence of independent witnesses. But it is not so in this case. Examined Independent witnesses and pancha not supported the case of the prosecution. One of the pancha is not examined. Hence evidence of 5 is not free from doubt.
17. Pw.1 and 3 went to the raid along with Pw.5. they stated before the Court in the line of Pw.5. They also stated regarding seizure of Mos.1 to 9 under Ex.P.1 panchaname and arrest of accused no.1 to 3 in the spot. Suggestion made by the advocate for accused persons in the cross examination is denied by PW.1 13 SC.755 of 2014 and 3. Whereas examined pancha turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Another pancha for Ex.P.1 panchaname is not examined before the court. Since evidence of Pw.5 is not fit to be taken into consideration as it is not free from doubt, similarly the evidence of Pw.1 and 3 is also not free from doubt because it is not supported by statement of any independent evidence. Accordingly their evidence is not taken into consideration.
18. Pw.6 is the police constable who arrested accused No.4 and produced before Pw.4 by filing report as per Ex.P.2. The suggestion made by the advocate for the accused persons is denied by Pw.6. His evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused persons.
19. Pw.4 is the investigating officer who investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the Court. Pw.4 stated before the Court that, after receipt of investigation papers from Cw.1/Pw.5 passed an order for arresting the other accused persons who were absconding. Accused No.4 produced before him by 14 SC.755 of 2014 Pw.6. He gave voluntary statement. Accordingly as per his voluntary statement he seized the two wheeler vehicles used for the commission of the offence under panchaname. He stated that he also seized other two vehicles under panchaname and transferred the same to the police station in which case is registered in respect of the said vehicles. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5, 7 and 8 showing accused No.6 as absconding. The suggestions made by accused persons are denied by Pw.4 in his cross examination. In this case panchas to the said vehicle seizure panchaname dated 4-4-2014 are not examined before the court even though sufficient time was granted to the prosecution. Panchas are not only panchas but also independent witnesses to the case of the prosecution. In view of the non- examination of the panchas doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution and evidence given its witnesses. The very important Ex.P.1 seizure panchaname and vehicle seizure 15 SC.755 of 2014 panchaname is not proved by the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused persons. Evidence of official witnesses is not sufficient to connect the guilt of the accused persons as it is not free from doubt and not supported by evidence of independent witnesses. Looking to any angle this Court is of the opinion that, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case as against the accused persons 1 to 5 and 8 as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence by awarding benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case as alleged against accused No.1 to 5 and 8 and answered Point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
20. Point No.3 : In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Acting U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C, accused No.1 to 5 and 8 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 399 & 402 of IPC.
16 SC.755 of 2014
2. Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5 and 8 and that of their sureties stands cancelled.
3. Mos.1 to 9 are ordered to preserved till the disposal of split-up case against remaining accused persons.
4. Office is directed to obtain bonds of accused No.1 to 5 and 8 as required U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of March 2015).
(JOSHI VENKATESH) Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-9, Bangalore.
ss ANNEXURE.
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: Bala Nayak, S/o Chikka Lakshman Nayak, 55 yrs, Pw.2: Shankar, S/o Narasimha, 30 yrs, Pw.3: Manjunatha.J., S/o Mallappa, 35 yrs, Pw.4: Mohammed Rafi, S/o Mohammed Husman, 41 yrs, Pw.5: Shivakumar, S/o Erappa, 32 yrs, Pw.6: Raj Sab, S/o Umar Sab, 42 yrs,
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
- NIL-
17 SC.755 of 2014
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Panchaname.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.1(c) : Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.2 : Report of Pw.6
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.3 : Photos
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.1.
Ex.P.4 : Complaint
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.5 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of Pw.5
4. List of documents marked for the Accused:
- NIL -
5. Material object marked in this case:
MO.1 : Knife
MO.2 : Mobile
MO.3 : Machu
MO.4 : Nokia mobile
MO.5 : Knife
MO.6 & 7 : Longs
MO.8 & 9 : Daggers.
(JOSHI VENKATESH)
Presiding Officer,
F.T.C-9, Bangalore.
18 SC.755 of 2014
27.03.2015:
State by: P.P,
A.1 to 5 & 8 - On bail.
For judgment.
Case called out. Accused No.1 to 5 and 8 present before the Court. Judgment passed and pronounced in open court. Operative portion of the judgment is as under:
1. Acting U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C, accused No.1 to 5 and 8 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 399 & 402 of IPC.2. Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5
and 8 and that of their sureties stands cancelled.
3. Mos.1 to 9 are ordered to preserved till the disposal of split-
up case against remaining
accused persons.
4. Office is directed to obtain bonds of accused No.1 to 5 and 8 as required U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., P.O., FTC.9, Bangalore.