Bangalore District Court
State By Upparpet Police Station vs Rajendrakumar @ Bannanjeraja on 22 October, 2021
1
KABC010222982016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2021
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1155/2016
COMPLAINANT:- State by Upparpet Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Rajendrakumar @ Bannanjeraja,
S/o. Sundarashetty,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at.Bannanje village,
Udupi district.
2. Sujith Poojari Kudkoli
@ Ramesh,
S/o. Ananda Poojari,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.284, 2nd Floor,
2
S.C.No.1155/2016
1 Main, Vinayaka Layout,
st
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru,
Native Place:
Kudkoli Bandara Home,
Boliyaru Post,
Mangalore Taluk.
Dakshina Kannada District.
1. Date of commission of offence : 25.4.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 25.4.2014
3. Date of arrest of the Accused :
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Prakash K.
5. Date of recording evidence : 28.11.2018
6. Date of closing evidence : 19.10.2020
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.3, 8 & 25(1-B) of
Arms Act and U/s.120(b),
384, 506(b) R/w 34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offences U/s.120(b),
384, 506 of I.P.C.&
U/s.3, 8 & 25(1- B) of
Arms Act against
accused No.1 are
not proved.
Offences U/s.120(b),
384, 506 of I.P.C. against
accused No.2 are
not proved.
3
S.C.No.1155/2016
: Offences U/s.3, 8 &
25(1- B) of Arms Act
against accused No.2
proved.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. B.N.Sunil Kumar
Adv. for A.2,
Sri. R.S. Adv. for A.1)
JUDGMENT
In this case, accused No.1 and 2 stand charged for the offences punishable U/Sec.3, 8 & 25(1-B) of Arms Act and U/s.120(b), 384, 506(b) R/w 34 of I.P.C. , in Cr.No.142/2014 registered at Upparpete police station, Bengaluru.
2. There are no admitted facts in this case.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; On 25.4.2014 evening at 4.00 p.m., Cw.1/Prakash K. police inspector CCB, Bengaluru got credible information of illegally possessing pistol by a person at Anandarao Circle near Ganesh Temple within the jurisdiction of Upparpet police station. Cw.1 along with Cw.2, Cw.3 panch witnesses, Cw.10 4 S.C.No.1155/2016 to Cw.13 police staff conducted raid, searched that person, prepared seizure mahazar, seized pistol and magazine from the possession of that person. During the course of custodial interrogation, accused admitted that he is in connection with accused No.1 Rajendra Kumar @ Bannanje Raja, entered into criminal conspiracy to supply illegal weapons. Further it is alleged that accused No.2 confessed that he had furnished telephone numbers of Cw.6 to Cw.9 to accused No.1. Accused No.1 demanded ransom from cw.6 to 9 by threatening them through threatening phone calls. On the basis of the report submitted by Cw.1 police officer, this case came to be registered.
4. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned Magistrate U/s. 190(b) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C.No.33096/2014 on the file of I-Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offences alleged against accused No.1 and 2 are triable exclusively by the court of 5 S.C.No.1155/2016 Sessions, this case is committed to this court as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.1155/2016.
5. After hearing, on 20.09.2018 charges against accused No.1 and 2 get framed as per Sec.228 of Cr.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried.
6. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, evidence appeared in the prosecution side evidence were explained to the accused No.1 and 2 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements. Accused No.1 and 2 denied all incriminating circumstances, material found in the prosecution side evidence. Accused No.1 and 2 have not produced any documents, materials on their behalf. Further no defence evidence is led by the accused side.
6
S.C.No.1155/2016
7. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused U/s.234 of Cr.P.C.
8. Now, points that arising for determination are :
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 25.4.2014 at 4.00 p.m., near Ganesha Temple, Anand Rao Circle, within the jurisdiction of Upparpet police station, Bengaluru accused No.2 found in possession of fire arm i.e., pistol with magazine in contravention of provisions under Section 3, punishable U/s.25(1-B) of The Arms Act, 1959?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid place, date and time accused No.2 found in illegal possession of firearm i.e., pistol and magazine without such name, number or other identification mark, in contravention to provisions U/s.8(2) punishable U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959?
3. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 and 2 7 S.C.No.1155/2016 have entered criminal conspiracy for supply of illegal weapons thereby accused committed offences punishable U/s.120(b) of I.P.C.?
4. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy accused No.1 made threatening phone calls to Cw.6 to Cw.9 demanding money by threatening them for life thereby committed offence of extortion punishable U/s.384 of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
5. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy accused No.1 threatened Cw.6 to 9 on demand of money thereby committed offences punishable U/s.506(b) of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
6. What Order ? Acquittal or conviction?
9. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
8
S.C.No.1155/2016
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Whenever any law made previous sanction for prosecution is mandatory, then it is the duty of the court to consider such fact before considering any other fact-in-issue or other relevant facts because institution of prosecution in the absence of valid sanction is like a futile exercise.
11. Section 39 of Arms Act 1959 deals with provision of sanction by the district magistrate in certain cases. According to Section 39 of Arms Act, 1959 no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence punishable U/s.3 without the previous sanction of district magistrate. Therefore, it is just and necessary to consider whether complainant police obtained previous sanction of the district magistrate, before instituting prosecution for offences punishable U/s.3 and 25 of the 9 S.C.No.1155/2016 Armts Act 1959. Cw.17 B.N. Ramarathna Kumar, the then police inspector at Special Instigation team in CCB examined as Pw.5. Pw.5 is the Investigation Officer in this case who deposed with respect of applying and obtaining sanction for institution of prosecution against accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.8. Ex.P.8 is the order issued by the then Police Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bengaluru bearing No.204/ Crime(2) COP/2014-15 dated 03.10.2014 according sanction to file charge sheet before the court against accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.412/2014 registered at Upparpet police station for offences punishable U/s.3 and 25 of Arms Act R/w.Sec.120(b), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. Carefully perused Ex.P.8. District Magistrate have applied mind by considering materials produced by the Investigation Officer before granting sanction. Contents of Ex.P.8 is proved by examining Pw.5. Therefore this court is of the opinion that prosecution have complied provisions U/s.39 of the Arms Act 1950. 10
S.C.No.1155/2016
12. Cardinal principles of the criminal trial is that accused shall be presumed to be innocent till guilty is proved. As per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the charges against accused beyond all reasonable doubts is on the prosecution. To determine whether prosecution succeeded to discharge burden of proof casts U/s.102 of Indian Evidence Act, it is just and necessary to assess evidence adduced, documents produced on behalf of the prosecution.
13. Detail of the prosecution evidence:-
Cw.6/T.Narayana is examined as Pw.1. In his evidence Pw.1 deposed with respect of receipt of phone calls from Bannanje Raja threatening to kill his wife and children on demand of Rs.1 crore. In this regard he had informed the same to Bhandar police station. Accused No.2 present before the court was working in his finance since last 6 years. Pw.1 further deposed that he was unable to identify recorded voice played at CCB police station. Pw.1 further deposed that he informed the police during investigation that Bannanje Raja 11 S.C.No.1155/2016 might have telephoned and his telephone number might have given by the accused No.2. In the cross-examination, Pw.1 has admitted that he had not mentioned the incident of demanding Rs.1 crore and threatening to kill his wife and children in his statement given to CCB police. Further Pw.1 has admitted that there are so many workers working in his finance office and so many persons worked in his office after getting telephone connection to his office. Further Pw.1 admitted that his office telephone number is published in the telephone directory.
14. Cw.7/P.C.Haseer is examined as Pw.2. In his evidence Pw.2 deposed that since 15 to 20 years he is doing business under the name of P.C.Group company. In the year 2014 he received unanimous threat calls. He came to know about arrest of accused No.2/Sujith Pujari who had saloon in his building. Police have informed him that his telephone number was mentioned in the diary found with accused No.2 Sujith Pujari. In the cross-examination by advocate for accused No.2, Pw.2 admitted that he had not stated in his 12 S.C.No.1155/2016 statement about accused No.2 running saloon in his building as tenant. Further Pw.2 has admitted that he had not given any statement to police stating that his telephone number was found in the diary maintained by accused No.2/Sujith Pujari.
15. Cw.8/Yadhav Kotiyan, a sub-contractor is examined as Pw.3. In his evidence Pw.3 deposed that no incident of demanding amount through mobile phone calls had taken place. He had not given any statement to the police. He do not know accused No.2 present before the court. He had not given any statement to the police about demanding money by accused No.1 through threatening calls and about hand over of his telephone number to accused No.1 by accused No.2.
16. Pw.3 was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State sought permission to question Pw.3 by treating him as hostile witness as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. 13
S.C.No.1155/2016 Even in the cross-examination, no such admissions are elicited to show that Pw.3 has deposed false. Further no such admission is elicited to show that Pw.3 is won over by the accused side.
17. Cw.1/Prakash K., the then police inspector, CCB police is examined as Pw.4. In his evidence Pw.4 deposed that on 25.4.2014 evening at 4.00 p.m., he received credible information about Sujith Poojari, follower of Bannanje Raja armed with pistol in front of 'C' Bird Tourist Agency near Ganesh temple at Ananda Rao circle, J.C.Road, Bengaluru. Intimating the said information to the higher officer, he summoned two witnesses, conducted raid, arrested the accused No.2. At the time of personal search, one 71110 automatic pistol with magazine is found with him. A purse containing D.L. Pan card, cash of Rs.45,000/-(forty five thousand) and a telephone diary was found in his pocket. He seized those items under the cover of Ex.P.3/mahazar, prepared report as per Ex.P.2. Pw.4 identified Mo.1/one pistol, Mo.2/Magazine, Mo.3/purse, Mo.4/phone book, Mo.5/samsung 14 S.C.No.1155/2016 mobile phone. Pw.4 identified accused No.2 before the court. Pw.4 stands unrebutted in the cross-examination.
18. Cw.17/B.N.Ramarathnakumar the then police inspector examined as Pw.5. In his evidence Pw.5 deposed that on 4.6.2014 Upparpet police produced one pistole, one magazine, one purse, one mobile phone and passport seized from accused No.2. He mentioned the same in station P.F.No.3/2014, submitted to the court on 5.6.2014. He enquired and recorded statements of Cw.2, Cw.3, Cw.10 to Cw.13. On 10.6.2014, he examined and recorded statements of Cw.6 to 9. Cw.8 had given statement as per Ex.P.1. On 13.6.2014 he sent seized revolver and mahazine to F.S.L. for examination. On 15.9.2014 he received report from Ballistics Department of F.S.L., Bengaluru. He submitted requisition to Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Bengaluru seeking permission for prosecution and received sanction for prosecution on 4.11.2014. Thereafter he submitted charge sheet against the accused. Pw.5 identified his requisition submitted to F.S.L. report and sanction for prosecution. Pw.5 15 S.C.No.1155/2016 stands unrebuted during cross-examination by advocate for accused No.1 and 2.
19. Cw.13/ Praveen Kumar police constable is examined as Pw.6. Cw.12 Umesh examined as Pw.9. Cw.11 Mohammed Shafiulla is examined as Pw.11. Cw.10/ Dayananda is examined as Pw.13. In their evidence Pw.6, 9, 11,13 deposed on the fact of arrest of accused No.2/Sujith Pujari, seizure of pistol and magazine under the cover of Ex.P.3/mahazar in the presence of two panch witnesses.. Pw.6, 9, 11, 13 identified accused No.2 as well properties Mo.1 to 6. Pw.6, 9, 11, 13 stand unrebutted in the cross- examination.
20. Cw.15/B.C.Raveendra Assistant Director of F.S.L., Bengaluru is examined as Pw.7. In his evidence Pw.7 deposed on the fact of examination of pistol and magazine sent by Investigation Officer for examination. Pw.7 identified his opinion at Ex.P.7. Pw.7 is of the opinion that weapon pistol that he examined is a fire arm and the same is in working 16 S.C.No.1155/2016 condition. Magazine is part of the said pistol. Pw.7 stands unrebutted during the cross-examination.
21. Cw.16/ Krishna Kumar, the then Station House Officer at Uapparpet police station is examined as Pw.8. Pw.8 deposed on the fact of registration of Cr.No.142/2014 for offences punishable U/s. 384, 506, 120(B) of I.P.C. and U/s. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, on the basis of the report submitted by Pw.4/Cw.1 Prakash Police Inspector. Further Pw.8 deposed with respect of fact of entering produced pistol, magazine and documents in station P.F.No.84/2014, submitted the same to the jurisdictional court at Ex.P.11. Pw.8 identified accused No.2/Sujith Poojari and seized articles at Mo.1 to Mo.5. Pw.8 further deposed on the fact of discovery of facts on the basis of information given by accused No.2/Sujith Poojari in the police custody. Pw.8 deposed about preparation of mahazar Ex.P.13 at the spot where pistol was handed over to him, seizure of passport at Ex.P.15, P.F.No.84/2014 at Ex.P.16. Pw.8 stands unrebutted during cross-examination. 17
S.C.No.1155/2016
22. Cw.14/Arjun police constable is examined as Pw.10, who submitted articles to F.S.L., Madiwala, Bengaluru. Pw.10 stands unrebutted during cross-examination.
23. Cw.2/Ravikumar panch witness for Ex.P.3/seizure mahazar is examined as Pw.12. Cw.3/ Pramod another panch witness is examined as Pw.15. Both Pw.12 and Pw.15 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Cw.9/Udaya Shetty one of the victims examined as Pw.14. Pw.14 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Pw.12, 14, 15 are cross- examined by the Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State after treating them as hostile witnesses U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act but unable to elicit anything in support of the case of the prosecution.
24. Statement, report, panchanama, requisition, property form, Requisition to F.S.L. F.S.L. Report, Sanction letter, sample seal, F.I.R., Property form, voluntary statements of accused, spot mahazar, voluntary statements, 18 S.C.No.1155/2016 property form No.84/2014, Acknowledgement, report, statement, Police note, call details report are got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22.
25. POINT NO.1:- Burden of proof to prove seizure in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. is on the prosecution to establish the fact that accused No.2 Sujith Poojari had in his possession fire arm i.e., pistol and magazine without possessing valid license U/s.3 of the Armts Act for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunition. Pw.4/Cw.1 Prakash police inspector in CCB, Bengaluru deposed seizure of Mo.1 and 2 pistol and magazine found with accused No.2/Sujith Poojari. Seizure of pistol and magazine is supported by the evidence adduced by Pw.6/Pw.13/Praveen Kumar police constable, Pw.9/Cw.12/Umesh police constable, Pw.11/Cw.11/Mohammed Shafiulla police constable, Pw.13/Cw.10/ Dayananda P.S.I. All these witnesses are identified seized pistol and magazine from the possession of accused No.2 Sujith Poojari. They have 19 S.C.No.1155/2016 identified Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar. Pw.8/Cw.16 Krishna Kumar, the then S.H.O. deposed on the fact of production of seized pistol and magazine Mo.1 and 2 by Pw.4/Prakash along with accused No.2/Sujith Poojari. Without any undue delay, Pw.8/Cw.16 submitted seizure report 80/14 to the jurisdictional court. Ex.P.11 P.F. contained particulars of seized pistol and magazine. Pw.10/ Cw.14 Arjun police constable deposed on the fact of submitting pistol and magazine to F.S.L. Madiwala for examination by ballistics experts. Pw.5/Cw.17 B.N.Ramarathna Kumar deposed on the fact of sending seized pistol and magazine to F.S.L. for examination. Pw.7/Cw.15/B.C.Raveendra Assistant Director in Forensic Ballistics at F.S.L., Madiwala, Bengaluru deposed on the fact of examination of Mo.1 and 2, identified his opinion at Ex.P.7/ Pw.7 identified Mo.1 and Mo.2 pistol and magazine before the court. Aforesaid evidence established the fact of seizure of Mo.1 and 2 pistol and magazine from the possession of accused No.2/Sujith Poojari under the cover of Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar.
20
S.C.No.1155/2016
26. Advocate for accused No.2 submitted that independent witnesses Cw.2 and Cw.3 signed on Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and hence seizure of firearms from the possession of accused No.2/Sujith Poojari is not proved in accordance with law.
27. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that seizure can be proved with the help of the evidence adduced by author of the seizure mahazar. Property forms prepared in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. made it clear that immediately after seizure of firearms, the same was intimated to the jurisdictional magistrate and permission to retain the same was accorded by the court. It is settled position of law that there are many reasons to turn panch witnesses hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, evidence adduced by the police officer and staff who participated in the raid, present at the time of seizure and Ex.P.5 property form established the fact 21 S.C.No.1155/2016 of seizure of firearms from the possession of accused No.2/Sujith Poojari.
28. During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by the accused side, no such admissions are elicited to suspect the fact of seizure of firearms from the possession of accused No.2/Sujith Poojari. Accused No.2/Sujith Poojari did not stated anything in his statement recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. with respect of such a serious allegations of acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. No material is available on record to show preponderance of probability that police have foist false case against the accused No.2.
29. Section 2(e) of the Arms Act 1959 defines as under;
(e) "firearms" means arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes,--
22
S.C.No.1155/2016
(i) artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such things,
(ii) accessories for any such firearm designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing thereof,
(iii) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, firearms, and
(iv) carriages, platforms and appliances for mounting, transporting and serving artillery;
30. It is not in dispute even from the side of the accused that produced Mo.1 and Mo.2 are not fire arm and ammunition. Prosecution establishes the fact of compliance of Section, 37 of Arms Act 1959 with respect of arrest and search. Rule 37 of the Arms Rule 1962 prohibits transport of arms and ammunition without obtaining a valid license from the authority. Accused No.2 did not produce license for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 23
S.C.No.1155/2016
31. POINT NO.2:- Once prosecution succeeded to prove the fact of seizure of firearms and ammunition, then burden shifts on the accused No.2 to show that he is holding license to acquire and possess firearms. Further it s the contention of the prosecution that the seized pistol and magazine is illegally manufactured firearms. Aforesaid fact is proved with the help of evidence adduced by Pw.7/B.C.Raveendra who deposed in his opinion at Ex.P.7 that there are no serial number, proof marks and company name on the pistol and hence the said pistol is an illegally manufactured firearm. Accused No.2 did not produce any document to show that he purchased the same from any licensed manufacturer who complied provisions under rule 25 of the Arms Rule 1962. Therefore, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. However there is no such material to establish the fact that Mo.1 and 2 pistol and magazine was supplied by accused. Therefore aforesaid charges against accused No.1 is not proved.
24
S.C.No.1155/2016
32. POINTS NO.3 TO 5:- So far as criminal conspiracy, extortion, life threat by accused No.1 with the assistance of accused No.2 is concerned, neither victims of extortion nor any of the circumstantial witnesses have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. Pw.1/T.Narayana, Pw.2/P.C.Haseer, Pw.3/Yadhav Kotiyan are not supported the case of the prosecution. Even in the cross- examination of Pw.14 after treating him as hostile witness, no such admissions are elicited to establish allegations of extortion by making threatening calls by accused No.1. 25
S.C.No.1155/2016
33. Documents produced on behalf of prosecution failed to establish the fact of criminal conspiracy entered between accused No.1 and 2 for supply of arms and for the purpose of extortion of money from Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.14. No supportive call details reports are produced by the prosecution to show that accused No.1 made threatening calls on demand of money from Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.14. Ex.P.22/ call details report is not sufficient to establish the fact of threatening phone calls made by the accused No.1/Rajendra Kumar @ Bannanje Raja for the purpose of extortion. Further Ex.P.22 is not supported by certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Even though Pw.5 Investigation Officer further examined and deposed with respect of criminal conspiracy between accused No.1 and 2, his evidence is not supported either by any electronic evidence, documents or oral evidence by the victims. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences charged against the 26 S.C.No.1155/2016 accused No.1 and 2 for punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. Hence, points No.3 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
34. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 25.4.2014 evening at 4.00 p.m., at Anandarao Circle near Ganesh Temple within the jurisdiction of Upparpet police station, Bengaluru accused No.2 was illegally in his possession pistol and magazine thereby accused No.2 has committed offence punishable U/s.3, 8 and U/s. 25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
35. POINT NO.6 In view of the above findings on points No.1 to 5, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences 27 S.C.No.1155/2016 punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. and U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 22nd day of October 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
28
S.C.No.1155/2016 3.00 P.M., FURTHER ORDER ON IMPOSING SENTENCE Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.2/Sujith Poojari submitted that, he is the sole bread winner for his parents. His wife and child are solely depending upon his earnings. He has got no bad criminal history. He is aged 39 years. For the said reasons, accused No.2 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offences proved against accused No.2.
Advocate for accused No.2 submitted to show leniency while imposing sentence on accused No.2. Minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.2.
29
S.C.No.1155/2016 Punishment for offence punishable U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine.
l Acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition without any valid license is a serious threat to public safety. No grounds made out to extend benefit of probation U/s.360 of Cr.P.C. or under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that accused No.2 is not entitle to get the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.3 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to 30 S.C.No.1155/2016 undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.2 if any shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. and U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence 31 S.C.No.1155/2016 punishable U/Sec.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.3 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.2 forthwith, free of cost.
32
S.C.No.1155/2016 Bail bond and his surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.1 is hereby directed to execute fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take personal bond of accused for Rs.1,00,000/- as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to issue release intimation to the jail authorities to release accused No.1 if he is not required in any other case.
Jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused No.1 if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 33
S.C.No.1155/2016 Material objects are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 22nd day of October 2021.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 T.Narayana
Pw.2 P.C.Haseer
Pw.3 Yadhav Kotiyan
Pw.4 Prakash K.
Pw.5 B.N.Ramarathna Kumar
Pw.6 Praveen Kumar
Pw.7 B.C.Raveendra
Pw.8 Krishna Kumar
Pw.9 Umesh
34
S.C.No.1155/2016
Pw.10 Arjun
Pw.11 Mohammed Shaffiulla
Pw.12 Ravikumar
Pw.13 Dayananda
Pw.14 Udayashetty
Pw.15 Pramoda
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Statement of Pw.3
Ex.P.2 Report
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.3 panchanama
Ex.P.3(a) to (f) Signatures
Ex.P.4 Requisition
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.5 Property Form No.3/2014
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.6 Requisition to F.S.L.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.7 F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.8 Sanction copy
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.5
35
S.C.No.1155/2016
Ex.P.9 Sample Seal
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.10 F.I.R.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.11 Property Form No.80/2014
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.12 Statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of accused No.2
Ex.P.13 Panchanama
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.14 Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.15 Pamchanama
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.16 Property Form No.84/2014
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.17 Endorsement
Ex.P.18 Report
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.19 Statement of Pw.14
Ex.P.20 Statement of Pw.15
Ex.P.21 Notice of Panchayathdhars
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of Pw.15
Ex.P.22 C.D.R.
For Defence side:-
-Nil-
IV List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Pistol
Mo.1(a) Signature of Pw.4
Mo.2 Magazine
Mo.2(a) Signature of Pw.4
Mo.3 Purse
Mo.3(a) Signature of Pw.4
36
S.C.No.1155/2016
Mo.3(b) Driving License
Mo.3(c) Pan Card
Mo.3(d) Cash of Rs.45/-
Mo.4 Phone Book
Mo.4(a) Signature of Pw.4
Mo.5 Samsung Mobile phone
Mo.5(a) Signature of Pw.4
Mo.6 Passport
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 37 S.C.No.1155/2016 22.10.2021 Accused No.1 produced from J.C. through V.C. Accused No.2 is present Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. and U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
38
S.C.No.1155/2016 To hear regarding sentence.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
39
S.C.No.1155/2016 3.00 P.M., FURTHER ORDER ON IMPOSING SENTENCE Heard regarding sentence.
Accused No.2/Sujith Poojari submitted that, he is the sole bread winner for his parents. His wife and child are solely depending upon his earnings. He has got no bad criminal history. He is aged 39 years. For the said reasons, 40 S.C.No.1155/2016 accused No.2 prayed to show leniency while imposing sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that, maximum sentence of imprisonment and fine may be imposed for the offences proved against accused No.2.
Advocate for accused No.2 submitted to show leniency while imposing sentence on accused No.2. Minimum sentence may be imposed by considering mitigating circumstances of accused No.2.
Punishment for offence punishable U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition without any valid license is a serious threat to public safety. No grounds made out to extend benefit of probation U/s.360 of Cr.P.C. or under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that accused No.2 41 S.C.No.1155/2016 is not entitle to get the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.3 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the opinion that period of judicial custody of accused No.2 if any shall be set off, invoking the provisions U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following order is made; 42
S.C.No.1155/2016 ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C. and U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.120(B), 384, 506(B) of I.P.C.
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.3 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Accused No.2 is convicted for offence punishable U/Sec.8 and U/s.25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 43 S.C.No.1155/2016 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand). In lieu of fine, accused No.2 shall undergo S.I.for six months.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.2 forthwith, free of cost.
Bail bond and his surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.1 is hereby directed to execute fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take personal bond of accused for Rs.1,00,000/- as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to issue release intimation to the jail authorities to release accused No.1 if he is not required in any other case.
Jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused No.1 if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.
44
S.C.No.1155/2016 Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Material objects are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
Sri.Sudheer Kumar advocate for accused No.2 filed I.A. U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence pending expiry of period for appeal.
In the said application it is stated offence punishable U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of Arms Act 1959 is punishable upto 3 years. Sentence imposed is 2 years and fine. Therefore, advocate for accused No.2 submitted that accused No.2 45 S.C.No.1155/2016 intends to prefer an appeal and hence prayed to allow the application.
Punishment prescribed punishable U/s.3, 8 and U/s.25(1-B) of Arms Act 1959 is punishable upto 3 years.
Sentence imposed on accused is 2 years and fine. Therefore, I.A. deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order is made;
ORDRER I.A. filed U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Execution of sentence of imprisonment is suspended till appeal period is over.
Accused No.2 is released on bail under following conditions;
1. Accused No.2 shall execute bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) and furnish one surety for the likesum.
2. He shall surrender before this court to serve sentence in the event his appeal fails. 46
S.C.No.1155/2016 To furnish surety and to remit fine amount of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand), by 27.10.2021.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.