Bangalore District Court
State By Amruthahalli vs Md. Mansoorulla Hasan on 8 March, 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 08th day of March 2017
C.C. No.2367/2014
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 : 27-03-2013
Offence : U/S 392 of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused Person Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Person Acquitted
Date of Order : 08-03-2017
2 CC No.2367/2014
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 27-03-2013 at about 8-00 p.m., when CW1
Madhuri Rao was walking within the limits of
Amruthahalli P.S. i.e., in front of house No.27, II
Cross, Chiranjeevi Layout, Hebbal Kempapura,
Bengaluru, the accused person who came from her
back side had robbed her gold chain weighing about
15 grams worth Rs.35,000/- 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
3 CC No.2367/2014
learned predecessor. Accused person pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has
examined in all three witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.3
and got marked the documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.5.
The learned Sr.APP has given up CW6. The other
witnesses i.e., CW1 to 5 and 9 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 prosecution has failed to examine
the complainant Madhuri Rao, inspite of giving
sufficient opportunities. Also the prosecution has
4 CC No.2367/2014
failed to secure the presence of other material
witnesses such as spot/seizure panchas, inspite of
giving sufficient opportunities. Hence, I am of the
view that the prosecution has lost its main witnesses.
7. However, the prosecution has examined three
police officials namely Anand, Siddarangaswamy and
M.Babu as PW1 to PW3 respectively. PW1 has
deposed about apprehension of accused on 26-11-2013
and production before the S.H.O. PW2 has deposed
about the preliminary investigation of this case
regarding registration of Ex.P2 - F.I.R. on the basis of
Ex.P1 - complaint. PW3 has deposed about receiving
the case file for further investigation from PI -
Panduranga, 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. Further, the PW3 has
5 CC No.2367/2014
identified the photograph of ornament seized by him
as per Ex.P5.
8. 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 as already noted, the prosecution has failed to
secure the presence of seizure mahazar witnesses as
well as prime witness i.e., CW1, 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.
9. There is no clear cut and sufficient evidence
on record to prove the alleged acts of accused person.
Hence, solely on the evidence of PW1 to 3, this court
does not deem it proper to base conviction to the
accused person. That apart, viewing from multi
dimensional angle, there is no sufficient, positive and
6 CC No.2367/2014
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.
His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty. The interim custody of gold chain at PF No.92/2013 already granted in favour of CW1 is hereby made absolute and the same shall come 7 CC No.2367/2014 into effect after the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 08-03-2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Anand
P.W.2 : Siddarangaswamy
P.W.3 : M.Babu
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.3 : Voluntary Statement
of Accused (Copy)
Ex.P.4 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5 : Photograph
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL 8 CC No.2367/2014 List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.9 CC No.2367/2014
08-03-2017 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 gold chain at PF No.92/2013 already granted in favour of CW1 is hereby made absolute and the same shall come into effect after the completion of appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.