Bangalore District Court
Jalahalli Ps vs A3 Manikanta Alias Bottle Mani on 1 March, 2025
KABC010188822024
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 1st day of March 2025.
S.C.No.871/2024
COMPLAINANT: State by
Jalahalli Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 3. Manikanta @ Bottlemani,
S/o.Shakthimelu.
Aged about 20 years,
R/at.No.27, 1st Main,
1st Cross, Jayaram Colony,
Mathikere,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.V.K., Advocate)
2 S.C.No.871/2024
Date of commission of offence : 17.07.2018
Date of report of offence : 24.07.2018
Date of arrest of the 08.01.2025
accused No.3 :
Date of release of the Still in judicial custody
accused No.3 :
Period of imprisonment Still in judicial custody
undergone by the accused :
Name of the complainant : Sri.Ankaiah.D.
Date of commencement 15.10.2020.
of trial :
Date of closing of evidence : 27.01.2025
Charges framed : Under Sections 397 and
506(B) of IPC.
Opinion of the court : The Accused No.3 is convicted
for the offence punishable
under Section 392 and 506(B)
of IPC.
JUDGMENT
This is a split-up charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused No.3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506(B) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.07.2018 at about 6-00 p.m., near Railway Track within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru while C.W.1 was walking on MES Road Railway Flyover Bridge after he crossed the 3 S.C.No.871/2024 railway track, the accused Nos.1 to 4 suddenly came and wrongfully restrained CW1 and accused No.1 showed the knife and pointed it on the stomach of C.W.1 and demanded him to give the valuables. When C.W.1 tried to escape, the accused No.2 having club in his hand assaulted C.W.1 on the right leg knee.The accused persons robbed from CW1 his neck chain, Samsung mobile phone and threatened him with dire consequences of life. Thereby, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506(B) of IPC.
3. After securing the presence of the accused No.3, the charge has been framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506(B) of IPC. The accused No.3 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 has remained absent before this court and hence the evidence led in the main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018 be adopted in the present case. The learned counsel for the accused No.3 has submitted that he has no objection for the same.
In the main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 4 S.C.No.871/2024 and got marked 19 documents from Exs.P.1 to 19 and M.Os.1 to 4. Thereafter, the statement of accused No.3 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.3 has denied the incriminating evidence stated against him. The accused No.3 has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
4. Heard the arguments.
5. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.07.2018 at about 6-00 p.m., near Railway Track within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru where C.W.1 was walking on MES Road Railway Flyover Bridge after he crossed the railway track, the accused No.3 along with other accused suddenly came there and wrongfully restrained him, the accused No.1 showed the knife and pointed it to his stomach and demanded to give the valuables and when C.W.1 tried to escape, the accused No.2 having club in his hand assaulted him on the right leg knee and they robbed from CW1 his neck chain, Samsung mobile phone and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC ?5 S.C.No.871/2024
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused No.3 along with other accused have posed life threat to C.W.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506(B) of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
6. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Accused No.3 is held
guilty for the offence
punishable under Section
392 of IPC.
POINT No.2 - Affirmative,
POINT No.3 - As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
7. POINT Nos.1 & 2 : Since both these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
8. Before proceeding to give findings on the aforesaid points, it is pertinent to note that in the main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018, this court has convicted the accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 397 & 506(B) of IPC and the accused No.1 is convicted for the 6 S.C.No.871/2024 offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of IPC vide judgment dated:4.11.2024
9. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2018 at about 6-00 p.m., near Railway Track within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru while C.W.1 was walking on MES Road Railway Flyover Bridge when crossed the railway track, the accused Nos.1 to 4 suddenly came there and wrongfully restrained him and the accused No.1 showed the knife and pointed it on the stomach of C.W.1 and demanded him to give the valuables. When C.W.1 tried to escape, the accused No.2 having club in his hand assaulted C.W.1 on the right leg knee. They robbed CW1 of his neck chain, Samsung mobile phone and threatened him with dire consequences of life. Thereby, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 506(B) of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Dr.Uma has deposed about the medical examination conducted on C.W.1-Sri.Ankaiah on 17.07.2018. She has stated about the injuries and the fracture sustained by C.W.1. In this regard she has given the wound certificate as per Ex. P.1. In her cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that the injured had not given the names of the persons who had assaulted him. She denied the suggestion that the injured had not taken any treatment 7 S.C.No.871/2024 in her hospital.
11. P.W.2-Sri.Ramesh, P.S.I., has stated that on 24.07.2018 he was deputed by C.W.13-P.S.I., to record the statement of the injured/C.W.1 who was admitted in K.C.General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. Accordingly he has recorded the statement of the injured/C.W.1-Sri.Ankaiah in the presence of the Doctor. He was informed by the injured that two persons had tightly held him and another person assaulted him with a club while other person extorted his mobile phone at the point of knife. He handed over the complaint (Ex.P.2) to C.W.13. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that he does not remember the name of the doctor who was present at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the hospital to record the statement of the injured and he is deposing falsely before the court.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Ankaiah, the injured has stated that on 17.07.2018 Tuesday at 6-00 p.m., he was walking towards his house on MES Road, near railway flyover, at that time four people came and stopped him. Out of them two persons held him, another took out a knife from his pocket and pointed it towards him and threatened him to handover the valuables and also threatened to kill him if he does not do so. One person assaulted him on his right knee with the club. They 8 S.C.No.871/2024 snatched his chain and mobile phone and threatened him that he should not give a police complaint. At that time one man and a woman came towards him and gave him some water and sent him in an autorickshaw. He told about the incident to his brother, who took him to the private hospital and then he was shifted to K.C.General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. Due to the assault by the club, he sustained fracture on his knee chip. He has given the complaint and his statement to the police on 24.07.2018. Thereafter on 27.07.2018 the police visited him in the hospital and showed him the knife, club, chain and mobile phone and he had identified the same. The police had shown him the four accused persons to him by name Sanjay Babu, Manikanta, Karthik and Shiva. He has identified the mobile, knife and club which are marked as M.Os.1 to 3. He has given his further statement to the police regarding the identification of the accused and material objects. He has identified the accused Nos.2 to 4, who were present before the court. He has also identified the accused No.1 who appeared before the court through V.C. He stated that he has forgotten the name of the accused who pointed the knife at him and threatened to kill him, but he can identify him. He has identified the photograph of the chain (Ex.P.6). He stated that the accused No.2 had assaulted him with a wooden club on his right knee. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that 9 S.C.No.871/2024 at 6-00 p.m., people were there on the said as they were going home from the work when the alleged incident took place. He has admitted that there were lot of people at the place of incident. It is elicited that four people were sitting on a stone. He stated that he first took treatment at S.K.Hospital and as he was not able to pay money for surgery, he went to K.C.General Hospital on 18.07.2018. It is elicited that he has not told in S.K.Hospital about the assault on him. He has stated that a old lady made him get into the auto. It is elicited that 24.07.2018 when the police came to the hospital, his brother informed the police about the incident. It is elicited that his brother had not intimated him about the information given by him to the police. Even though he has stated that on 24.07.2018 the police wrote down the complaint, he has stated that the police did not read the contents of the complaint. On 27.07.2018 the police brought 3-4 people to the hospital and at that time he was alone. In the hospital he was not shown the chain, mobile phone and other articles seized from the accused. 8-10 weeks after his discharge he went to get the chain and mobile. He has not shown the place of incident to the police. He denied the suggestion that he seeing the accused for the first time before the court. He has stated that he had seen the accused at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the chain (M.O.1) did not belong to him. He stated that he has not received the mobile phone. It is elicited that 10 S.C.No.871/2024 on 27.07.2018 the police did not receive his statement. He denied the suggestion that he deposing falsely about the incident.
13. P.W.4-Smt.Lakshmi has stated that about two years back she was coming in an autorickshaw, she saw a person fallen down and some assailants who had knife and club in their hands and had snatched his mobile phone and chain. Due to the assault he had fallen down. She made him to drink water and shifted him . She stated that she seen the accused at the spot. She does not know the names of the accused. She has identified the M.Os.1 to 3. She has identified the accused No.4. She has given her statement to the police. As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that the police informed her the names of the accused Nos.1 to 4 as Sanjay, Shivashaneshwara, Manikanta and Karthik. The witness has not appeared before the court for cross examination by the advocate for the accused.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Balachannaiah is the brother of the complainant. He has stated that on 25.07.2018 between 11-00 a.m. and 12-00 p.m., the spot mahazar (Ex.P.3) was conducted at the place of incident and he 11 S.C.No.871/2024 has signed the mahazar as per Ex.P.3(a). He has further stated that on 17.07.2018 his brother C.W.1 came to the house between 7-00 to 7-30 p.m., and informed him that somebody had assaulted him with a club resulting which he had sustained injuries on his right knee. He took him first to a private hospital, on scanning and X- ray, they came to know that he had sustained fracture and has needed operation. C.W.1 was then shifted to K.C.General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that the police have not given him any notice calling him to be a mahazar witness. He has not given any statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he signed the mahazar in the Police Station.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Madhu has stated that on 25.07.2018 between 6-00 to 7-00 p.m., in Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, the police conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.4. At that time four accused were present and he came to know that their names were Sanjay, Shiva, Karthik. The police seized one chain, one knife and one mobile phone. He stated that the accused No.1 produced the chain and knife before the police. The mobile phone was seized from the accused No.2. He has identified the M.Os.1 and 2. He has signed Ex.P.4 as per Ex.P.4(a). Another mahazar was drawn at railway flyover, where the police seized the club (M.O.3) and 12 S.C.No.871/2024 chopper (M.O.4). At the time of seizure, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were present along with the police and the spot was shown by the accused. The police drew the mahazar (Ex.P.5) between 11-30 a.m., to 12-00 p.m. He has signed it as per Ex.P.5(a). As the witness has not fully supported the prosecution case, hence on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as partly hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 25.07.2018 the accused Nos.1 to 4 were with the police and the accused No.1 had produced the knife, the accused No.2 had produced the chain, the accused No.3-Manikanta had produced the mobile phone. He admitted that on 27.07.2018 the police conducted mahazar (Ex.P.5) and seized a club and chopper (M.Os.3 and 4) in the bush near the flyover. The witness has not subjected himself for cross examination by the advocate for the accused.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Pavan Kumar is also a witness to the mahazars (Exs.P.4 and P.5). He has stated that he has signed the same as per Ex.P.4(b) and Ex.P.5(b). He has identified M.Os.1 to 4. He has identified his signatures on the chits affixed on the M.Os., as per M.O.1(b) to 4(b). He stated that he can identify the chain in the photo (Ex.P.6). He has signed Ex.P.4 in the Police Station when the police recovered the knife from the accused No.1, gold chain from the accused No.2, mobile 13 S.C.No.871/2024 phone from accused No.3. On 27.07.2018 C.W.13 called him over the phone to come near railway track, Jalahalli, where the accused Nos.1 to 4 were present and C.W.5 was also present. The police seized the club and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.5. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, he denied the suggestion that C.W.1 is his relative. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not show any articles to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Swaminathan, Police Inspector has deposed about receiving the wound certificate (Ex.P.1) and filing of the charge sheet.
18. P.W.9-Srinivasa Murthy has deposed about apprehending the accused Nos.1 to 4 on 25.07.2018 along with C.Ws.9 to 11 near railway bridge, MES Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru and he has produced them before C.W.13. He has given the report as per Ex.P.7. He has identified the accused. In the cross examination of P.W.8 and P.W.9 by the learned advocate for accused, P.Ws.8 and 9 have denied the suggestion that they have not conducted any investigation and that they are deposing falsely before the court.
19. P.W.10-Sri.Lepakshamurthy, P.S.I., has deposed about receiving the complaint and filing of the FIR (Ex.P.8). He has conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.3).
14 S.C.No.871/2024The accused Nos.1 to 4 were produced before him with report (Ex.P.7) by C.Ws.8 to 11. He has recorded the statements of the witnesses and the voluntary statements of the accused persons. On the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1, he has seized M.O.1-knife, gold chain, Samsung mobile (M.O.2) by conducting mahazar (Ex.P.4). He has identified the photo of the chain as per Ex.P.6. On 27.07.2018 after he obtained the police custody of the accused no2, the accused led him near MES Road, railway bridge where he seized a club and chopper in the bush by conducting mahazar (Ex.P.6). He then produced the accused before the court. He handed over the file to C.W.14 for further investigation. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that no article was seized from the place as shown by the accused. He has denied the suggestion that the articles were not seized from the custody of the accused by conducting the mahazar as per Ex.P.4. He has denied the suggestion that he has created the documents and property for the purpose of this case.
20. P.W.11-Dr.Kalavathi has stated that the police came to the hospital on 24.07.2018 and in her presence they took the statement of Ankaiah as per Ex.P.2. She signed the same as per Ex.P.2(d). The patient was in a fit condition to give the statement. On 27.07.2018 the police did not bring the accused or the articles to the 15 S.C.No.871/2024 hospital to show it to the injured for identification. As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has stated that she does not remember that on 27.07.2018 the police had brought four accused persons with mobile and gold chain to the hospital and the injured had identified them and in this regard she has given the statement as per Ex.P.19.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, she denied the suggestion that she has not given treatment to the injured and as such she cannot state as to whether he was in a fit condition to give the statement. She denied the suggestion that she deposing falsely before the court.
21. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is first necessary to note that C.W.2 who has been examined as P.W.4 and C.W.5 who has been examined as P.W.6 have not subjected themselves for cross examination by the advocate for accused. Hence my learned Predecessor passed the order on 21.11.2023 stating that their evidence stands striked out.
22. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused persons have committed the offences 16 S.C.No.871/2024 punishable under Sections 397 and 506(B) of IPC. The burden lies upon the prosecution to establish that the accused No.3 along with other accused has committed the offence under Section 397 of IPC and Section 506(B) of IPC. Here itself it is necessary to refer to Section 397 of IPC, which reads as under :
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.-- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
23. From the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is pertinent to note that the injured who is cited as C.W.1 in the charge sheet has been examined as P.W.3. In his examination in chief he has identified the accused No.4. He has identified the accused No.1 who appeared through video conference from judicial custody. He has also identified the accused Nos.2 to 4 (It is necessary to note that on 10.03.2021 at the time of recording the evidence of P.W.3/C.W.1, the accused No.3 was appearing before the court). The injured has specifically stated that the accused No.2 assaulted him with wooden club on his right knee. He has identified the wooden club (M.O.3). As discussed 17 S.C.No.871/2024 supra, the injured has stated that out of the four accused, two accused held him, one showed him a knife and threatened to handover the valuables and threatened to kill him and he was assaulted with club on his right knee. They snatched his chain, mobile phone and robbed him of the same and threatened him not to give any police complaint.
24. The defense taken by the learned advocate for accused is that the injured has not specifically stated as to which accused snatched the gold chain and mobile phone cannot be accepted. As in natural course when a person is hit with a wooden club causing grievous injuries and when he is in pain, one cannot expect him to pin point or identify as to which accused robbed his chain and mobile phone. The mahazar witness (P.W.7) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) have given evidence that club was seized from the spot shown by accused No.2. Also from their evidence, it is clear that the chain and mobile were seized from the custody of the accused Nos.1 to 4. The evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot looked with suspicion solely on the ground that he is a police. There is no lacunae nor contradictions brought out in the evidence of Investigating Officer to disbelieve his evidence. Also P.W.7 who is also a mahazar witness has supported the prosecution case. From the evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the accused No.3 along 18 S.C.No.871/2024 with other accused had snatched the neck chain and mobile of the complainant.
25. Here itself it would be appropriate to take note of the decision in the case of Shri Phool Kumar vs.Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797 wherein it is observed as hereunder:
"5. Section 392 of the Penal Code provides:
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. The sentence of imprisonment to be awarded under Section 392 cannot be less than seven years if at the time of committing robbery the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person: vide Section
397. A difficulty arose in several High Courts as to the meaning of the word "uses" in Section 397. The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender 19 S.C.No.871/2024 who had not used any deadly weapon. In that view of the matter use of the gun by one of the culprits whether he was accused Ram Kumar or somebody else, (surely one was there who had fired three shots) could not be and has not been the basis of sentencing the appellant with the aid of Section 397. So far as he is concerned, he is said to be armed with a knife which is also a deadly weapon, to be more precise from the evidence of PW16 "Phool Kumar had a knife in his hand". He was therefore carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Any other overt act, such as, brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of Section 397 of the Penal Code."
26. Further it is alleged that that one of the accused had shown knife, as discussed supra it is not proved as to which of the accused had a knife. But from the evidence on record it can be safely said that all the accused had committed robbery of chain and mobile phone from the possession of the injured. Also as discussed supra, the chain and mobile belonging to C.W.1 is seized from the custody of the Accused Nos.1 to 4.
27. Here itself it is pertinent to note that Sections 397 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relate to robbery 20 S.C.No.871/2024 and dacoity. While they are related offenses, they have distinct legal definitions and penalties.
Further Section 397 IPC deals with "robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt," which is a more severe offense. If a person is charged under Section 397, it means they are accused of committing robbery with the intention to cause death or grievous hurt. While Section 392 IPC, on the other hand, deals with "robbery" in general.
28. Now, the question before the court is :
Can a person charged under Section 397 be convicted under Section 392?
29. Section 392 of IPC reads thus :
"Punishment for robbery :-
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years"
30. In this regard it is observed that even if charge is framed against all accused under 397 of IPC, But as the prosecution has failed to prove the more severe offence under Section 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) against the Accused No.3 herein, but has proved the lesser offense under Section 392 of IPC 21 S.C.No.871/2024 (robbery), the court may convict the Accused No.3 under Section 392. This is because Section 392 is a lesser offence compared to Section 397, and the ingredients of Section 392 are included in Section 397.
31. However, the converse is not true. If a person is charged under Section 392, they cannot be convicted under Section 397, as the more severe offense requires additional elements to be proven. Hence , in view of the evidence placed on record it can be safely said that prosecution has proved that the Accused No.3 has committed offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Further, it is pertinent to note that in S.C.No.1849/2018 this court has already held that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.2 has committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
32. Further it is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 506(B) of IPC. In this regard it is necessary to refer to Section 506 of IPC of which 506(B) is a integral part which reads as under:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--22 S.C.No.871/2024
And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
33. As such it is clear that if threat is to cause death or grievous hurt or to cause an offence punishable with death or (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both
34. In the present case, from the evidence placed before the court it can be safely said that the accused have given life threat which falls under the second part of Section 506 of IPC i.e., 506(B) of IPC. As such it can be safely said that the accused No.3 along with other accused had given life threat to the injured C.W.1 so as to prevent him lodging police complaint. Hence, in view of the evidence placed on record it can be safely said that prosecution has proved that the accused No.3 23 S.C.No.871/2024 has committed offence punishable under Section 506(B) of IPC.
35. In view of the discussion made supra, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.3 has committed offence punishable under Section 392 and 506(B) of IPC. Hence, the Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
36. POINT No.3: In view of my findings on Points Nos.1 and 2 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.3 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of IPC.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of March 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
24 S.C.No.871/2024Accused No.3 is produced from Judicial custody through V.C. ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the Accused No.3, his counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor on the question of sentence to be imposed on the Accused No.3.
The Accused No.3 has submitted that he is innocent and he is in judicial custody. He stated that he hails from a poor family having elderly parents and minor children and he is the sole earning member of his family. Hence requested the court to release him.
The learned advocate for the Accused No.3 has submitted that the Accused is innocent of the offences alleged against him. The accused No.3 has no other criminal antecedents. He is a first time offender. Hence submitted that minimum sentence be imposed. Also submitted that the Accused No.3 is in judicial custody since the date of this arrest and the period of imprisonment undergone by him be set off. Also the accused being aged below 25 years are entitled for benefit under the provisions of P.O.Act.
On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused No.3 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of IPC which are heinous and grievous in nature. The accused is a habitual offender. Hence submitted that 25 S.C.No.871/2024 maximum imprisonment and fine should be imposed on accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of IPC.
In view of the submission made by both the sides, it is pertinent to note that the offences alleged against the accused No,3 are punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of IPC, which are heinous in nature. In this case, the accused No.3 has violated the bail conditions in main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018. As such he has delayed the progress of the case.
The offence under Section 392 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and with fine. The offence is heinous in nature and also taking into consideration that the accused No.3 has not co- operated in disposal of the main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018. Even otherwise as per the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused No.3 is a habitual offender. Hence this court is of the considered view that the accused No.3 is not entitled for the benefit under the P.O.Act.
The Accused No.3 is entitled for set off for the imprisonment already undergone by him since the date of his arrest. In view of the discussion made supra and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I proceed to pass the following sentence to the Accused No.3.
26 S.C.No.871/2024ORDER The Accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of SIX YEARS and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for ONE MONTH for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
The Accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH, for the offence punishable under Section 506(B) of IPC.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Acting under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.3 is entitled for set off for the period of detention undergone by him in judicial custody against the sentence of imprisonment.
Free copy of the judgment shall be given to the Accused No.3.
27 S.C.No.871/2024M.Os.1 to 4 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up Accused No.4.
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Dr.Uma P.W.2 Ramesh P.W.3 Ankaiah P.W.4 Lakshmi P.W.5 Balachannaiah P.W.6 Madhu P.W.7 Pavan Kumar P.W.8 Swaminath P.W.9 Srinivasamurthy P.W.10 Lepakshamurthy P.W.11 Dr.Kalavathi
(P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined in main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018) List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Wound Certificate Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.1(c) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.10 28 S.C.No.871/2024 Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.3 Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of P.W.10 Exs.P.4(d) to (g) Signatures of the accused Nos.1 to 4 Ex.P.5 Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of P.W.10 Exs.P.5(d) to (g) Signatures of the accused Nos.1 to 4 Ex.P.6 Photo of the chain Ex.P.7 Report Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.8 F.I.R. Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.9 Voluntary Statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.9(a) Relevant portion in Ex.P.9 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.9(c) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.10 Voluntary Statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.11 Voluntary Statement of accused No.3 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of accused No. Ex.P.11(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.12 Voluntary Statement of accused No.4 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of accused No.4 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.10 Exs.P.13 to 16 Voluntary Statements of accused Nos.1 to 4 Exs.P.13(a) to Signatures of accused Nos.1 to 4 16(a) 29 S.C.No.871/2024 Exs.P.13(b) to Signatures of P.W.10 16(b) Ex.P.17 Property Form Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.18 Property Form Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.19 Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.11
(Exs.P.1 to 19 were marked in main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018) List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Mobile Phone
M.O.1(a) Signature of P.W.6
M.O.1(b) Signature of P.W.7
M.O.2 Knife
M.O.2(a) Signature of P.W.6
M.O.2(b) Signature of P.W.7
M.O.3 Club
M.O.3(a) Signature of P.W.6
M.O.3(b) Signature of P.W.7
M.O.4 Chopper
M.O.4(a) Signature of P.W.6
M.O.4(b) Signature of P.W.7
(M.Os.1 to 4 were marked in main case i.e., S.C.No.1849/2018) List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RASHMI M
RASHMI Date:
M 2025.03.06
13:13:52
+0530
30 S.C.No.871/2024