Bangalore District Court
State By Banaswadi Police Station vs A1- Lawrence on 18 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXIII ADDL., CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-64)
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
PRESENT
SRI.JOSHI VENKATESH, B.A.LL.B,(Spl),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SC.No.807/2015
Complainant : State by Banaswadi Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
Accused : A1- Lawrence,
S/o Andrew,
Aged 23 Years,
R/at Balappa Compound,
Near Ayyappa Temple,
Aralimara Road,
Subbaiah Palya, Banaswadi,
Bangalore. (Accused is in J.C.)
(By Sri.T.S., Adv.,)
A2- Arun, S/o Anand,
Aged 23 years,
R/at No.2, 7th Cross,
'A' Block, Janakiram Layout,
Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru.
(Accused is in J.C.)
(By Sri.T.S., Adv.,)
2 SC.807/2015
A3 - Ravi Sagai @ Ravi,
S/o Arogyaswamy,
Aged 26 years,
R/at No.447, Masjid Road,
'B' Block, Near Sulab Toilet,
Janakiram Layout,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.S.N.V., Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 18.10.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 18.10.2014
3. Arrest of Accused No.1 to 3 : 18.10.2013
4. Name of the complainant: Sri. Govindaraju, A.S.I.,
5. Date of commencement of trial: 29.01.2016
6. Date of closing of evidence : 11.07.2016
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.399 & 402 IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 to 3 found not
guilty.
*****
JUDGMENT
1. Police Inspector of Banaswadi Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused persons alleging that they have committed an offence punishable U/Secs.399 & 402 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, when PW.2/A.S.I. Baanasawadi police station was on patrolling duty along with his staff within the limits of his police station on 18.10.2014 came near Oil Mill road at 8.35 p.m. and 3 SC.807/2015 received credible information from the informant stating that, under the Lingarajapuram over bridge near Ford Show Room Cross Road, accused persons are assembled with deadly weapons like club in their hands to commit the offence of dacoity. Immediately PW.2/A.S.I., secured his staff, panchas and reached the spot of offence with them, watched the activities of the said accused persons, then confirmed about the information received. Immediately along with his staff and panchas conducted raid on them at 9.00 p.m. and arrested accused No.1 to 3 on the spot. Other 2 persons ran away from the spot. On search of accused No.1 to 3, two clubs and two chilly powder packets were found. Accordingly they are recovered under Ex.P.3 panchanama. Then PW.2/A.S.I., along with accused No.1 to 3 and seized material objects returned to the police station and filed report as per Ex.P.1 before P.S.I., Banaswadi police station. P.S.I., Banaswadi police station received the report, registered the case against the accused persons in Cr.No.585/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.399 and 402 of IPC. Then after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence 4 SC.807/2015 punishable U/Sec.399 and 402 of IPC by showing accused No.4 and 5 as absconding.
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, XI ACMM, Bangalore registered case against accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 & 402 IPC. Accused No.1 and 2 remained in judicial custody. Accused No.3 is enlarged on bail. After furnishing copy of the charge sheet to accused No.1 to 3, case is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences alleged are exclusively triable by court of sessions.
4. After receipt of case papers from the XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore, Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered the case against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.399 and 402 of IPC in SC.No.807/2015 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
5. After receipt of the case papers this Court issued intimation to the jail authorities to produce accused No.1 and 2 before the Court. Accused No.3 appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. Even though accused No.1 and 2 are granted bail, they failed to furnish surety. Accordingly they are in judicial custody.
5 SC.807/2015
6. After hearing the Advocate for the accused No.1 to 3 and prosecution, Charge framed, read over and explained to accused No.1 to 3 in Kannada language known to them. After knowing the same, accused No.1 to 3 not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
7. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.3 documents and got marked MOs.1 to 4. Public Prosecutor given up evidence of CWs.5 to 10. NBW issued to panchas for Ex.P.3 panchanama returned un-executed without proper reason. Accused No.1 and 2 are in judicial custody for long time i.e., from the date of their arrest. Hence prayer of the prosecution to re-issue NBW to panchas for Ex.P.3 panchanama is rejected and taken prosecution evidence as closed.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 313 Cr.P.C., statement of accused No.1 to 3 is recorded. Accused No.1 to 3 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution case and submits no defense evidence.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the records. 6 SC.807/2015
10. The points those arise for consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 to 3 along with other accused persons, on 18.10.2014 at about 8.35 p.m. assembled under the Lingarajapuram over bridge, Ford Show Room Cross Road, with deadly weapons like clubs in their hands and preparing to commit the offence of dacoity on the general public moving there and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.399 of IPC ?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused 1 to 3 along with other accused persons, on the above said date, time and place of offence, in furtherance of their common intention assembled with deadly weapons in their hands with an intention to commit dacoity on the general public moving there and thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.402 of IPC ? Point no.3 : What Order?
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative, Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Point Nos.1 and 2 :- In order to avoid repetition of facts, I proceed to discuss point nos.1 & 2 together in a single discussion.
13. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, when A.S.I., was on patrolling duty in the limits of his police station on 7 SC.807/2015 18.10.2014 along with his staff near Oil Mill road. At that time i.e. at 8.35 p.m. he received credible information from the informant stating that, under the Lingarajapuram over bridge near Ford Show Room Cross Road, accused persons are assembled with deadly weapons like club in their hands to commit the offence of dacoity. Immediately A.S.I., secured his staff and reached the spot of offence along with panchas, watched the activities of the said persons. After confirmation about the information received, immediately along with his staff conducted raid on them at 9.00 p.m. and arrested accused No.1 to 3 on the spot. Other 2 persons ran away from the spot. On search of accused No.1 to 3, two clubs and two chilly powder packet were found. Accordingly they are recovered under Ex.P.3 panchanama. Then A.S.I., along with accused No.1 to 3 and seized material objects returned to the police station and filed report as per Ex.P.1 before P.S.I., Banaswadi police station. P.S.I., Banaswadi police station received the report, registered the case against the accused persons in Cr.No.585/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.399 and 402 of IPC. Then after completion of investigation filed 8 SC.807/2015 charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.399 and 402 of IPC by showing accused No.4 and 5 as absconding.
14. It is well settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution, then the accused No.1 to 3 are very well entitled to get the said benefit of doubt in his favour. Let us see whether the prosecution is successful in proving its case against the Accused No.1 to 3.
15. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.3 documents and Mos.1 to 4 is marked.
16. PW.1 is the P.S.I., who registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. PW.2 is the complainant who on receipt of the information secured his staff and panchas, went to the spot, arrested the accused persons and produced them before PW.1 by filing report. PW.3 is the police official who went to raid along with PW.2. Ex.P.1 is report filed by PW.2, Ex.P.2 is F.I.R. and Ex.P.3 is spot mahazar under which MOs.1 to 4 are recovered by PW.2.
9 SC.807/2015
17. PW.2 stated before the Court that, when he was on patrolling duty on 18.10.2014 at about 8.35 p.m. he received credible information regarding assembling of accused persons near Ford Show room under Lingarajapura over bridge. Immediately he collected his staff and panchas, went to the spot of offence, watched them and conducted raid on them. Accused No.1 to 3 were arrested on the spot. Other two accused persons ran away. He conducted Ex.P.3 panchanama and recovered Mos.1 to 4 from accused No.1 to 3.
18. PW.3 is the official who went to raid along with PW.2 and gave evidence in the line of PW.2. Both PW.2 and PW.3 denied the suggestions made by advocate for accused persons in the cross examination. Why PW.2 not collected the panchas of the area where they conducted raid is not made known.
19. PW.1 is the P.S.I., who received the complaint from PW.2.
He registered the case, arrested accused persons, recorded statement of witnesses and then filed charge sheet. Investigating Officer also not stated why he could not collect the evidence of independent witnesses. In this case 10 SC.807/2015 very important panchas who are not only panchas to Ex.P.3 recovery panchanama, they are also independent witnesses to the incident. But they are not examined before the Court. If they could have been examined the Court, they could have thrown some light on the true facts of the case. Non-examination of panchas to Ex.P.3 panchanama is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. In view of the non-examination of recovery panchas this Court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove Ex.P.3 panchanama showing the presence of accused persons on the spot and recovery of Mos.1 to 4 on the spot. Evidence of PW.1 to 3 must be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. If it is not so, then it is not fit to be taken into consideration. Evidence of PW.1 to PW.2 is not fit be considered for connecting the guilt of the accused persons. Evidence before the Court is not sufficient to connect the guilt of accused persons. Looking to any angel this Court is of the opinion that, prosecution utterly failed to prove its case as alleged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. So far accused No.4 11 SC.807/2015 and 5 is not traced. Hence there is no any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that, prosecution failed to prove its case as alleged against accused persons. Accordingly, Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative.
20. Point No.3 : In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Acting U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C, accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 399 & 402 of IPC.
2. Bail bonds of accused No.3 and that of his sureties is cancelled.
3. Jail authorities are directed to release accused No.1 and 2 in this case only if they are not required in any other cases.
4. Mos.1 to 4 are ordered to preserved till the disposal of the case against accused No.4 & 5.
5. Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to execute fresh personal bail bonds for Rs.50,000/- each and accused No.3 is also directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.50,000/- with one surety like sum to secure the presence of accused persons before higher court in case of any appeal is preferred against 12 SC.807/2015 this judgment of acquittal as required U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C., and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of its execution.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised by me and then pronounced in th the open court on this the 18 day of July 2016).
(JOSHI VENKATESH) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1: Ramamurthy, S/o Beemanna, 36 yrs, P.S.I., Banaswadi police station, Bangalore. PW.2 : M. Govindaraju, S/o Muniyappa, 55 yrs, A.S.I., Banaswadi police station, Bangalore. PW.3 : Hanumanthaiah, S/o Late Kempaiah, 56 yrs, A.S.I., Banaswadi police station, Bangalore.
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
- NIL-
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Report of PW.1
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
13 SC.807/2015
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P3 : Raid mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.2
4. List of documents marked for the Accused:
- NIL -
5. Material object marked in this case:
Mo.1 : Wooden club
Mo.2 : Wooden club
Mo.3 : Chilly powder
Mo.4 : Chilly powder.
(JOSHI VENKATESH),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City.
.
14 SC.807/2015
15 SC.807/2015