Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs Date Of Release Of on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
Serial Number of the C.C.25092/2014
case
Name of the State by Police Sub
complainant Inspector, Kengeri Police
station.
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1). Ravi,
person S/o.Late. Nataraj,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o.Ward No.31, Near
Maddurramma Temple,
Hanumanth Nagar,
Ramnagar Tq.,
2). Sundar,
S/o.Govindraju,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o.VinayakaNagar,
Arkavathy Layout,
Near H.P.Gas godown,
Ramanagar Tq., and
District.
(Reptd. by Sri.Gopal
Krishna.. Adv.,
2 C.C.25092/2014
Date of commencement 16.04.2014
of offence
Name of informant of Sri.Krishnappa
crime
Offences complained of U/Sec.380 of the IPC
Date of arrest of A1 - 30.05.2014
accused
Date of release of
accused on bail
Date of commencement 31.05.2018
of recording evidence
Date of closure of 21.06.2018
recording evidence
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused and Not guilty
his examination :
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 08.08.2018
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C I. The facts which are necessary to decide this case are as under: 1 (a).
The allegations against the accused :
That, on 16.04.2014, during afternoon hours, the accused no.1 and 2 committed theft of more than 20 3 C.C.25092/2014 grams of golden ornaments viz a pair of ear hangings, one finger ring, one golden bangle, suthu matti, kept in the cupboard/almirah of the house of C.W.1Krishnappa, situated at No. 67, 3rd cross, Channasandra Colony, Uttarahalli road and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable U/s. 454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
2. After submitting the charge sheet, criminal case against accused no.1 and 2 came to be registered. Section 207 Cr.P.C complied. Accused no.1 and 2 were arrested and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy furnished to the accused no.1 and 2. The charge framed for the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC and read over to the accused no.1 and 2. Accused denied the charges leveled against them as false and pleaded not guilty.
3. On behalf of prosecution, evidence of P.W.1 to 4 adduced and documents as per Ex.P.1 to 7 are got marked.
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the accused 4 C.C.25092/2014 denied the incriminating circumstances found against them as false. No defence evidence on behalf of accused.
5. Heard both sides,
6. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the reasons stated below:
II. Brief statement of reasons
1. On behalf of the prosecution, C.W.6 one Sri.Ravi Parik is examined as P.W.2. This witness deposed that about 3 years back police recovered 25 grams of gold ie, golden chain, bangle and ring. Further he identified the photo of the stolen property which is marked as per Ex.P.2.
According to the case of the prosecution, police drawn seizure mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses at the time of recovering stolen property and this P.W.2 is also signatory to the mahazar. This witness identified his 5 C.C.25092/2014 signature in the mahazar but deposed that police not drawn mahazar in his presence. Mahazar is marked as per Ex.P.3 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.3(a).
Hence this witness is treated as hostile witness. In the cross examination made by the learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
2. The evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to establish that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of P.W.2. But evidence of P.W.2 is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused persons. Hence evidence of P.W.2 is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
3. P.W1 police constable deposed that himself and C.W.10 secured the accused and produced before Investigating Officer.
4. P.W.3 ASI in his evidence deposed that he registered the crime and handed over further investigation to C.W.10. 6 C.C.25092/2014
5. C.W.10 who is examined as P.W.4, deposed that on the basis of the information given by the accused, he recovered the stolen property from the possession of P.W.2 (C.W.6).
6. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Repeatedly NBW was issued against other witnesses. It was reported that C.W.1 and 2 left the address and were not traced and C.W.5 and 8 were intimated. It is reported that C.W.4 is dead. After giving sufficient opportunities, by rejecting prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to reissue NBW against C.W.1 to 3, 5 and 8, prosecution evidence is taken as closed.
7. During course of trial, the defence of the accused is one of total denial of the case of the prosecution.
8. This court observed that the independent seizure mahazar witnesses are not secured and examined and prime witnessinformant of crime is also not secured and examined. However, evidence placed on record is sufficient 7 C.C.25092/2014 to establish that theft was committed in the house of informant of crime . But evidence placed on record, except the evidence of P.W.4 is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. In the absence of examination of informant of crime, as to identification of the accused atleast in the police station and in the absence of evidence of independent seizure mahazar witnesses and when P.W.2 is not supporting the case of the prosecution, as to involvement of the accused, this court feels that it is not safe and proper to rely on the evidence of PW.4Investigating Officer. Accordingly it is not proper to hold that the accused sold the stolen property to P.W.2 and it is not safe and proper to draw presumption that the accused committed theft as alleged.
For the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused and prosecution failed to make out good and sufficient grounds to hold the guilt of the accused and consequently I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following order...
8 C.C.25092/2014III. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Accused no.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety stand cancelled.
The interim order as to release of the gold chain is hereby made absolute.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of August 2018).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Pradeep KumarPolice constable12672 P.W.2: Ravi Parik P.W.3: Sri.Rangaswamaiah.GASI P.W.4: Sri.Lakkanna Ramappa Masaguppi -P.S.I 9 C.C.25092/2014
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P.1:-Report Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2: Photo Ex.P.3 :Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3(a): Signature Ex.P.4: FIR Ex.P.4(a): Signature Ex.P.5: Mahazar Ex.P.5(a); Signature Ex.P.6 & 7: Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P.6(a,b) & 7(a, b)Signatures
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.