Bangalore District Court
Malleshwaram Police Station vs Unknown on 5 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH 2020
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C Serial Number of the C.C.11982/2019 case Name of the State by Police Inspector, complainant Malleshwaram Police station (Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor ) Name of the accused 1).Manjunath, person/s S/o. Chikkanna, Aged about 34 years, R/at.No.05, 3rd Cross road, Nagarabavi road, BDA Complex, Bangalore.
(Reptd.by Sri.N.U.K ...Adv., Offences complained U/Sec.392 of IPC. of Charges framed for U/Sec.392 of IPC.
the offences
Date of
commencement of 07.04.2018
offence
Date of 24.01.2020
commencement of
recording evidence
2 C.C.11982/2019
Date of closure of 25.02.2020 recording evidence Plea of the accused Not Guilty and his examination :
Offences proved Nil Final Order : Accused Not found guilty Date of final order 05.03.2020
I. Brief statement of reasons for the decision:
1. On behalf of prosecution, C.W.1/ informant of crime-Smr.Sudha examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that somebody snatched her golden mangalya chain, she lodged complaint and police drawn mahazar on the spot.
The complaint and spot mahazar identified by the witness are marked as Ex.P.1 and 2 respectively.
Further P.W.1 deposed that police traced the part of the golden mangalya chain and she got released the olden mangalya chain to her interim custody. The photo of the stolen property identified by the witness is marked as Ex.P.3. This witness not deposed as to seeing accused in the police station. According to the case of the 3 C.C.11982/2019 prosecution, police shown the accused in the police station to this witness(P.W.1). Hence this witness is treated as hostile witness. In the cross examination made by the Learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor the witness withstood to her version.
2. C.W.2-Sri.Lakshman Shetty, who is none other than husband of C.W.1/P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2. The P.W.2 is a hearsay witness as to incident of alleged chain snatching. This witness also not identified the accused.
The evidence of P.W1 and 2 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused.
3. C.W.7 and 8 are examined as P.W.3 and 4 claiming to seizure mahazar witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution, on 09.05.2018 police seized motorcycle of the accused under mahazar as per Ex.P.4. Though witnesses identified their signatures in the mahazar, they did not support the case of the prosecution. The mahazar is marked as Ex.P4. 4 C.C.11982/2019
The evidence of P.W.3 and 4 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove Ex.P.4-Mahazar.
4. C.W.9 and 10 examined as P.W.5 and 6. According to the case of the prosecution, I.O seized 03 chains under Ex.P.5 mahazar in the presence of these C.W.9 and 10(P.W.5 and 6). Both P.W.5 and 6 not supported the case of the prosecution. Though P.W5 admitted some facts in the cross examination made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor, his evidence is also not inspiring confidence. Hence evidence of P.W.5 and 6 also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the accused .
5. C,W.20- I.O who registered the crime and drawn spot mahazar is examined as P.W.7 and she deposed explaining the same. Evidence of P.W.7 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of the accused.
6. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. 5 C.C.11982/2019
7. In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 900 (State of Karnataka v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
8. As I have above stated the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is sufficient to believe the incident of chain snatching, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution having another opportunity to prove the fact that stolen property is recovered from the posession of the accused, or based on the information given by the accused. In the present case on hand, as I have above mentioned the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to believe that the stolen property is recovered from the possession of the accused. 6 C.C.11982/2019 With this observation, this court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
II. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused-Manjunath for the offence punishable U/Sec. 392 of the IPC.
Accused is set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
The interim order as to release of the gold mangalya and gundu(beads) to the custody of C.W.1 is hereby made absolute.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of March 2020).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1-Smt.Sudha P.W.2-Sri.Lakshman Shetty P.W.3-Sri.Singarappa P.W.4-Sri.Kumar P.W.5-Sri.Vinodkumar Gandhi 7 C.C.11982/2019 P.W.6-Sri.Rakesh P.W.7-Sri.Narasimhaiah-ASI
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2:Mahazar Ex.P.2(a,b): Signatures Ex.P.3: Photo Ex.P.4: Seizure mahazar Ex.P.4(a,b): Signatures Ex.P.5: Copy of mahazar Ex.P.5(a,b): Signatures Ex.P.6:FIR Ex.P.6(a): Signature
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.