Bangalore District Court
State By Amruthahalli Police vs Md. Mansoorulla Hasan on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri Rudolph Pereira B.Com., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of January 2017
C.C. No-2404/2014
Complainant : State by Amruthahalli Police,
Bengaluru
-V/s-
Accused : Md. Mansoorulla Hasan
@ Mansoor s/o Md. Noorulla,
19 yrs, R/at Behind Mujamil
Masjid, Near 2nd Cross of
H.K.B.K. College Front Gate,
Dead End Right Side House,
Govindapura, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence : 12-08-2013
Offence : U/S 392 of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused Person Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Person Acquitted
Date of Order : 10-01-2017
2 CC No.2404/2014
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.I. of Amruthahalli P.S., Bengaluru has filed this
charge sheet against accused person for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 12-08-2013 at 5-00 p.m., when CW1 Subbamma
was walking in front of house No.185, Water Tank Road,
Talakaveri Layout, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru, the accused
person who came there in Yamaha R-15 had robbed her gold
chain weighing about 50 grams worth Rs.1,00,000/- and flew
away from the spot. Thereby the accused person has
committed the aforesaid offence.
3. The accused person is on bail. After furnishing the
copies of charge sheet, charge was framed, read over and
explained to the accused person by my then learned
predecessor. Accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
3 CC No.2404/2014
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all
five witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.5, got marked the
documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.5 and material object as per
MO1. The learned Sr.APP has given up CW3 and 8. The
other witnesses i.e., CW4 to 7 did not turn up before this
court inspite of coercive steps taken by this court. Hence by
rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP, this court dropped the
said witnesses. Thereafter, the accused person is examined
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating
evidence and submitted that he has no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Sr.APP
and the learned counsel for accused person.
6. Herein, the complainant Subbamma appeared before
the court as PW1. She has deposed contradictory evidence
about the alleged incident dated 12-08-2013. It is the case of
prosecution that only one accused person who came in a bike
had robbed the gold neck chain of PW1. But before this
4 CC No.2404/2014
court, the PW1 has deposed that two unknown persons came
in a bike from her back side by wearing helmet and one
among them robbed her gold chain and flew away from the
spot. She has deposed that before got releasing her neck
chain, the police did not show her neck chain and the accused
in the police station. But the prosecution papers would
disclose that the PW1 has identified her chain and the
accused was shown to her and her statement was recorded
accordingly as per Ex.P3. Further, the PW1 has denied the
same and stated that she has not given any statement to the
police as per Ex.P3. The above evidence of PW1 indicates
that there is no corroboration between the prosecution case
and the testimony of this witness. Hence, I am of the view
that the evidence of this witness is not fit for consideration.
7. The alleged spot mahazar witness Sripada Rao
entered into the witness box as PW5. Though this witness has
supported the case of prosecution in his chief examination,
5 CC No.2404/2014
during the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that
he does not know the names of other signatories to Ex.P2.
Further, he has expressed his inability to depose about the
name of police official who drafted the spot mahazar in the
spot. Hence, the evidence of this witness is not trustworthy.
8. The prosecution has examined three police officials
namely Anand, Panduranga and M.Babu as PW2 to PW4
respectively. PW2 has deposed about apprehension of
accused on 26-11-2013 and production before the S.H.O.
PW3 has deposed about the preliminary investigation of this
case from the stage of receiving information about the
alleged robbery till conducting of the spot mahazar. PW4 has
deposed about receiving the case file for further investigation
from PW3, arrest of accused produced before him, recording
the voluntary statement, recovery of robbed property etc., and
filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation.
6 CC No.2404/2014
9. In theft/robbery cases, what is required to be proved
by prosecution is that the nexus between stolen/robbed article
and accused. But, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution
has failed to secure the presence of seizure mahazar
witnesses inspite of coercive steps taken by this court and the
same is fatal to the case of prosecution. In this view of fact,
the whole case of prosecution has been rendered weak and
hence this court does not deem it proper to base conviction
on the evidence available on record. Hence, viewing from
multi dimensional angle, I hold that there is no sufficient,
positive and material evidence to bring home the guilt of
accused person. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. 7 CC No.2404/2014 His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
The interim custody of MO1 already granted in favour of PW1 is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10-01- 2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Subbamma
P.W.2 : Anand
P.W.3 : Panduranga
P.W.4 : M.Babu
P.W.5 : Sripada Rao
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.4 : Seizure Mahazar
(True Copy)
Ex.P.5 : Photograph
8 CC No.2404/2014
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Gold Chain List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.9 CC No.2404/2014
10-01-2017 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
The interim custody of MO1 already granted in favour of PW1 is hereby made absolute.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.10 CC No.2404/2014