Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka By vs M.Nazeer on 13 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2021
PRESENT:
Sri.G.L.Lakshminarayana, B.Com. LL.B,
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO.510/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka by:
Subramanyapura Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
ACCUSED: 1. M.Nazeer,
S/o Mohiddin Sab,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.3646, 9th Main,
B.S.K. 2nd Stage,
Kaveri Nagara, Bengaluru
2. Hari Babu,
S/o Venkatappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.402, Chandrodaya
Apartment, Goudanapalya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.V.S. Advocate)
3. Srikanth V. (Splitup)
2 S.C.No.510/2017
1. Date of commission of offence 12.11.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence 12.11.2016
3. Date of commencement of
Evidence 24.07.2018
4. Date of closing of evidence 02.03.2021
5. Name of the Complainant Rangamani R.
6. Offences complained of 397 & 413 of IPC
7. Opinion of the Judge Offences not
proved
8. Order of sentence As per final order
: JUDGMENT :
The Police Inspector of Subramanyapura police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 397 and 413 of IPC.
3 S.C.No.510/2017
2. The case of prosecution is as follows:
That on 09.11.2016 the complainant Rangamani came to Bengaluru for the purpose of attending the opening ceremony of her brother's son Sunil, which is situated near her brother's house. After attending the opening ceremony she came back to her brother's house. That on 12.11.2016 again she came to the house of Sunil to attend the Sathyanarayana pooja. After attending the Sathyanarayana pooja at about 12.00 pm she went to her brother's house near the vacant site by walk. At that time from the opposite direction one person came and dashed her and snatched her one layer mangalya chain and two layers of Avalakki chain and ran away from the spot in two wheeler along with another person and she sustained injury on her knee. Thereafter she informed the same to her brother's son Sunil and lodged the complaint. On the same day at about 3-15 pm the police came to the spot and drawn spot mahazar. 4 S.C.No.510/2017 After completion of the investigation, the Investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 (A3-Splitup) for the offences punishable under sections 397 and 413 of IPC before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on receipt of the final report from the police, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and registered a case in C.C.No.6965/2017, complied with the requirements under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter by an order dated 30.03.2017, committed the case to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bangalore, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.3 is split up.
4. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, on receipt of the records from the learned II 5 S.C.No.510/2017 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, registered the case in S.C.No.510/2017, made over the same to this Court for disposal as per law.
5. After committal of the case to this court, in response to court summons accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the court and they were represented by their counsel and they were released on bail. The accused No.3 is split up in this case.
6. After hearing both side, my learned predecessor in this office has framed the charge against the accused Nos.1 and 2 only for the offences punishable under sections 397 r/w 34 of IPC, read over and explained the accused in the language known to them and they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got examined 13 witnesses as PW-1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 documents in evidence. 6 S.C.No.510/2017
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken a plea of total denial and have not led any defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the accused. Perused the materials placed on record.
10. The following points that arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.11.2016 at about 12-15 pm, the complainant went to her brother's house near the vacant site by walk situated at 5th Cross, 4th Main, Maruthi Nagar, Bengaluru, at that time from the opposite direction the accused Nos.1 and 2 came in their Hero Honda Fashion bike and the pillion rider i.e. the accused No.1 came with an intention to committee the robbery of the complainant, showed knife and snatched 7 S.C.No.510/2017 her mangalya chain weighing 50 grams worth Rs.1,50,000/- and ran away from the spot in two wheeler along with accused No.2, thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under section 397 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What order?
11. My findings on the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 - In the Negative.
POINT NO.2 - As per final order, for the following:-
: REASONS :
12. POINT NO.1: Since these two points are inter connected with each other hence to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, these two points are taken up together for common discussion.
13. To prove the aforesaid case, the prosecution though has cited 18 witnesses in the charge sheet as 8 S.C.No.510/2017 C.W.1 to C.W.18, however, during the trial, it could examine only 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13.
14. P.W.1-Smt.Rangamani deposed in her evidence that her brother name is B.G.Subramani and he is residing at Vasanthapura Layout. On 09.11.2016 she came to Bengaluru for the purpose of attending the opening ceremony of her brother's son Sunil, which is situated near her brother's house. After attending the opening ceremony she came back to her brother's house.
15. P.W.1 further deposed that on 12.11.2016 again she came to the house of Sunil to attend the Sathyanarayana pooja. After attending the Sathyanarayana pooja at about 12.00 pm she went to her brother's house near the vacant site by walk. At that time from the opposite direction one person came and dashed her and snatched her one layer mangalya chain and two layers of Avalakki chain and ran away from the spot in 9 S.C.No.510/2017 two wheeler along with another person and she sustained injury on her knee. The said person was looking short and his hairs are curly and wearing pink colour shirt.
16. P.W.1 further deposed that she shouted for help, the public will gather there. Thereafter she informed the same to her brother's son Sunil and lodged the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a).
17. P.W.1 further deposed that on the same day at about 3-15 pm the police came to the spot and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.2(a). At the time of drawing the mahazar one Harsha was present who was the resident of the opposite house.
18. P.W.1 further deposed that after three months of the incident, that on 21.01.2017 the police called her to police station through phone. Thereafter the police 10 S.C.No.510/2017 showed two culprits and she identified the accused persons. She identified the accused No.1 who present before the court, who snatched her chains in her neck. She identified the accused No.2 who present before the court who was riding the bike on the date of the incident and they were ran away from the spot. The police showed one gold bullion and the said gold bullion was seized in Attica Gold shop.
19. P.W.1 further deposed that she identified the Honda bike which is used for the commission of offence. At the time of dashing her, the accused was holding one knife in his hand. Thereafter she filed application for interim custody of the gold bullion and she received the gold bullion.
20. P.W.1 further deposed that she identified the photograph of chain which is marked as Ex.P.3 and she identified the photograph of gold bullion which is marked 11 S.C.No.510/2017 as Ex.P.4 and she identified the photographs of motorbike which are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and she identified the phone of knife which is marked as Ex.P.7. In her cross examination she deposed that her brother is a retired employee of police department, she cannot say that on the day the accused persons have come to the vehicle colour and registration number. Further in her cross-examination deposed that she has not taken any treatment at hospital and she lodged the complaint to Subramanyapuram police station at 5-00 pm. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she has not owned any documents to show that the gold chain is belongs to her. Further admitted that the complaint was written by his brother and his brother's son, she has only put the signature on the complaint. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her brother and her brother's son prepared the complaint and given the complaint to police. She did not know the 12 S.C.No.510/2017 contents of the complaint. Further P.W.1 in her cross- examination stated that on the date of the incident there was a busy road and she came to Subramanyapura police station. In the police station the police have shown the disputed gold bullion. The photo of the gold bullion seized by the police is marked as Ex.P.4. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she cannot say that in Ex.P.4 shown the gold bullion was manufactured out of the chain. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she signed Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 at the police station. In her cross-examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defence.
21. P.W.2-Harshavardhana deposed in his evidence that he know C.W.1-Rangamani and C.W.2- Vijayakrishnan. C.W.1-Rangamani showed the place of occurrence to the police and police drawn Ex.P.2. He identified his signature on Ex.P.2 and his signature is 13 S.C.No.510/2017 marked as Ex.P.2(b). On 12.01.2016 at about 2-30 pm the police have drawn the spot mahazar at 5th Cross, 4th Main, Maruthi Layout as per Ex.P.2 and at the time of mahazar himself, complainant and C.W.2 were present and they have put their signatures on Ex.P.2. In his cross-examination stated that at the time of drawing the mahazar the police have not issued notice to him. The police inspector come to that spot and denied the suggestions that the police have not drawn the mahazar at the spot and the police have prepared the mahazar at police station. In his cross-examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defence.
22. P.W.3-Suresh deposed in his evidence that he know the accused No.2 and he does not know accused No.1. He know C.W.7-Mahesh and he know accused No.3-Srikanth. The accused No.3 was working in Attica Gold Company.
14 S.C.No.510/2017
23. P.W.3 further deposed that on 28.12.2016 police took him and accused No.2-Haribabu and accused No.3-Srikanth to the office of Attica Gold Company situated at Queens Road. Thereafter they went to the branch of Attica Gold office situated at Kathriguppe and there they have seized one DVR and Lenova system. Thereafter at about 5-30 pm they went to Billekahalle branch office situated at B.G.Road. Thereafter they went to the office of Attica Gold Company situated at South End Circle and there they have seized one I-Ball system and DVR. In the head office they have seized 4 gold bullions.
24. P.W.3 further deposed that the said 4 gold bullions weighing about, 40 grams, 26 grams and 33 grams. Thereafter the police have drawn the mahazar in the police station as per Ex.P.8 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.8(a). He signed the same in the police 15 S.C.No.510/2017 station. He saw the photos of gold bullions and with regard to this case he identified one photo of gold bullion which is marked as Ex.P.4. He identified the accused No.2 present before the court. In this case the police have recorded his statement. Further P.W.3 in his cross- examination stated that he signed the seizure mahazar at Kumara Swamy Layout police station. At the time of drawing of Ex.P.8 mahazar himself, Mahesh and accused No.3 were present. Except these persons other accused persons were not present. In his cross-examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defence.
25. P.W.4-Prakash deposed in his evidence that he know accused persons in this case and he know C.W.9- Gopal who is his friend. In the year 2016, Kumaraswamy layout police have called himself and C.W.9 to the police station to act as panchas. Thereafter the police took them to Attica Gold Company situated at Queens Road and 16 S.C.No.510/2017 they enquired PRO Srikanth. The said Srikanth accepted that they have purchased the gold ornaments from accused persons.
26. P.W.4 further deposed that thereafter the police along with accused and themselves i.e., panchs went to another Attica Gold shop situated at Banashankari 3rd Stage and there they have seized one computer and DVR and they know that one Jayaprada was kept the ornaments in the same shop. He does not know the said Jayaprada.
27. P.W.4 further deposed that thereafter they went to Billekahalle branch office situated at B.G.Road and there they have seized one computer and DVR. Thereafter they went to the branch office of Attica Gold Company situated at South End Circle and there they have seized one computer and DVR. Thereafter they have returned back to police station. In the police station they 17 S.C.No.510/2017 have not seen the seized 4 gold bullions and in their presence the police have not seized gold billions by drawing the mahazar.
28. P.W.4 further deposed that from 4-30 to 7-30 pm they were present in the police station. He has signed the Ex.P.8 mahazar in the police station and his signature is marked as Ex.P.8(b). With regard to mahazar the police have not recorded his statement. The learned public prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and in his cross-examination denied the entire suggestions putforth by the learned public Prosecutor. This witness evidence is nowhere helpful to the case of the prosecution.
29. P.W.5-Kendegowda deposed in his evidence that he do not know C.W.5-Srinivas. He do not know the accused persons in this case. He identified the seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.10 and his signature is marked 18 S.C.No.510/2017 as Ex.P.10(a). About two years back he signed the mahazar Ex.P.10 at Kumaraswamy Layout police station. He do not know for what purpose the police have drawn the seizure mahazar. No articles were seized in his presence. He has not given any statement before the police. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross examination. In his cross-examination denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor.
30. P.W.6-Gopal deposed in his evidence that he know the accused persons. He know C.W.8-Prakash. That on 28.12.2016 his higher officer called him and instructed him to act as panchas at the time of drawing the mahazar by Kumaraswamy Layout police. Therefore, himself and C.W.8-Prakash went to Kumara Swamy Layout police station. In the police station the police have not told anything to them. Thereafter the police took them to Attica gold shop situated at Queens road and 19 S.C.No.510/2017 there one manager was present. There also the police have not told anything to them. The police have seized DVR and CPU in the shop.
31. P.W.6 further deposed that they went to the branch of Attica Gold office situated at Kathriguppe and there they have seized CPU and DVR. Thereafter they went to the branch of Billekahalli i, B.G.Road and there they have seized one DVR and CPU. Thereafter they went to Attica Gold company another branch situated near Abhay Hospital and there also they have seized one DVR and CPU. He has put his signature on the mahazar as per Ex.P.8(c) in the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness as hostile and nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination. P.W.-6 denied the entire suggestions putforth by the learned Public Prosecutor.
20 S.C.No.510/2017
32. P.W.7-R.Panduranga deposed in his evidence that from January 2016 to February 2017 he was worked as Assistant Sub Inspector at Kumaraswamy Layout police station. He knows C.W.11 to C.W.13. That on 24.12.2016, himself and C.W.11 to C.W.13 were deputed to search the accused persons in crime No.433/2016 and the higher officer has given the photos of accused persons. At about 11-30 am as per the information of the informant they went near City Engineering College situated at Vasanthapura and there the accused persons were present. By seeing them the accused persons tried to escape. Himself and other staff were surrounded the accused persons and he caught hold accused No.1. Other staff members were caught hold accused No.2.
33. P.W.7 deposed that they enquired the names of the accused persons and produced them before the Investigating officer at about 12-00 pm along with report, which is marked as Ex.P.13. In his cross-examination 21 S.C.No.510/2017 stated that he did not know the CCTV footages produced by the Investigating officer before the court or not. He cannot say the name of the accused and address of the accused. Further denied the entire suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for the defence.
34. P.W.8-M.Kumaraswamy deposed in his evidence that from August 2016 he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector at Subramanyapura police station. On 12.11.2016 at about 1-00 pm, one Rangamani came to police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. He received the complaint and registered the case in crime No.693/2016 and submitted the FIR before the court. The endorsement and signature found on the complaint is marked as Ex.P.1(b). The said FIR is marked as Ex.P.14. Thereafter he handed over the case file to C.W.17 for further investigation. In his cross- examination admitted that the complainant brother is working in the police department. Further denied the 22 S.C.No.510/2017 entire suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for the defence.
35. P.W.9-Ravi Patil deposed in his evidence that on 24.12.2016 he received the case file for further investigation in crime No.433/2016 of Kumaraswamy Layout police station and he verified the same. The Police Sub Inspector has arrested the accused persons in this case. He produced the accused persons before the court and he took the accused persons in the police custody for 10 days. On 28.12.2016 he recorded the voluntary statements of accused persons.
36. P.W.9 further deposed that the accused No.1 has stated in his voluntary statement that " £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀj¨Á§Ä E§âgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ZÉÊ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß QvÀÛAvÀB ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ VgÀ« EnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ"
which is marked as Ex.P.15.23 S.C.No.510/2017
37. P.W.9 further deposed that the accused No.2 has stated in his voluntary statement that "£À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀj¨Á§Ä E§âgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ZÉÊ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß QvÀÛAvÀB ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ VgÀ« EnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É which is marked as Ex.P.16.
38. P.W.9 further deposed that on the basis of Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 they sent notice to the office of C.W.4-Prakash and C.W.6-Gopal and called them to act as panchas.
39. P.W.9 further deposed that in the police jeep himself and his staff, panchas and accused persons were came to Attica gold shop situated at Queens road and met PRO Srikath. In the earlier they went to the branch of Attica Gold office situated at Banneghatta Road and in that office P.W.3-Suresh was working as Manager. The said Suresh was identified the accused persons. They 24 S.C.No.510/2017 have seized one I-ball company CPU and IHIK Vision company DVR from the branch office of Attica Gold company. The said articles were seized under Ex.P.8.
40. P.W.9 further deposed that on the same day at about 7-30 pm in the office of P.W.3 they have produced 5 gold bullions before him and they are weighing 40.72, 43.56, 26.42, 51.5 and 33.00 grams respectively. He has drawn the panchanama Ex.P.8 between 2-00 pm to 8-30 pm in three different places i.e., Bannerghatta Road branch office of Attica Gold Company, Queens road office of Attica Gold company and police station as per Ex.P.8 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.8(d). The seized articles mentioned in P.F.No.281/2016 and obtained permission from the court. On the same day he recorded the statements of Suresh, Srikanth, Mahesh and panchas Prakash and Gopal.
25 S.C.No.510/2017
41. P.W.9 further deposed that on 29.12.2016 he called P.W.1 Rangamani and recorded her statement. In her statement she stated that the accused No.1 was snatched her chain and accused No.2 ride the bike. Thereafter he obtained permission from the court to transfer the case and he transferred the same to Subramanyapura police station.
42. P.W.9 further deposed that P.W.4 and P.W.6 have given statements before him as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.12. He arrested the accused persons are the accused Nos.1 and 2 present before the court. In his cross-examination deposed that he was not drawn the mahazar at each branch of Attica Gold Company. Accused persons are not appear in the CC Tv footages. He has not conducted the identification parade of the accused and further denied the entire suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for the accused. 26 S.C.No.510/2017
43. P.W.10-Prakash Rathode deposed in his evidence that from 28.10.2016 to 27.11.2016 he was working as in-charge Police Inspector in Subrmanyapura Police Station. That on 12.11.2016 he received the case papers for further investigation from C.W.5-Sri. Kumaraswamy, ASI and verified the case papers. On the same day he visited the spot at about 3.15 p.m. and secured the panchas i.e C.W.2 and C.W.3. He conducted the spot mahazar in the place shown by the complainant Smt.Rangamani. Now he saw the said mahazar which is already marked as Ex.P.2 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.2(c). Thereafter he handed over the case papers to C.W.18-Sri. Kempegowda, Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station. In his cross- examination he did not issue notice in writing to C.W.2 and C.W.3 come to the spot and assist for mahazar. He did not take signature of owners of the neighbours house on Ex.P.2 as he did not feel it is necessary and denied the 27 S.C.No.510/2017 entire suggestion putforth by the learned counsel for the accused.
44. P.W.11-Sri.L.Rajendra deposed in his evidence that from August 2016 to January 2017 he was working KS Layout Police Station as Police Sub Inspector. That on 24.12.2016, when he was in the Police Station on duty at that time P.W.7-Pandurangaiah and C.W.12 Mahadevaiah HC produced both the accused persons before him along with a motor cycle, a button knife and 2 mangalya chains. In this behalf they submitted a report. Now I saw the said report which is already marked as Ex.P.13. Later, he arrested both the accused persons and seized the articles produced by P.W.7 and C.W.12 by conducting a mahazar in the presence of C.W.5 and P.W.5. Now he saw the said mahazar, which is already marked as Ex.P.10.
28 S.C.No.510/2017
45. P.W.11 further deposed that he can identify the above referred articles. Now he saw the Ex.P.3 to 7 photographs containing articles. Later he produced both the accused before the court and took them to Police custody. He can identify both the accused persons, who are present before the court today.
46. P.W.11 further deposed that later he recorded the statements of C.W.5-Srinivasa and P.W.5- Kempegowda. P.W.5 has given the statement before him as per Ex.P.11. Later he subjected those properties through PF. No. 278/16 and he handed over the case file to P.W.9-Sri.Ravi Patil, Police Inspector for further investigation. In his cross-examination deposed that he did not issue notice in writing to C.W.4 and C.W.5 to act as panchas. He did not try to ascertain who is RC holder of the both vehicles and denied the entire suggestion putforth by the learned counsel for the accused. 29 S.C.No.510/2017
47. P.W.12-Kempegowda deposed in his evidence that from 25.11.2016 to 21.12.2019 he was working as Police Inspector, Subramanyapura Police Station. That on 25.11.2016 he received the case papers from P.W.10- Rathode for further investigation and verified the records.
48. P.W.12 further deposed that on 17.01.2017 he deputed Police Sub Inspector Sri. Arjun to secure the case papers and material objects from K.S Layout Police Station Cr. No.438/2016 which are connected to this case. On the same day the Police Sub Inspector Arjun has produced the material objects and the case papers connected to the above case. He subjected those properties through PF. No.13/17. The property includes gold biscuit weighing 51.500 grams.
49. P.W.12 further deposed that after verifying the case papers he found that the investigation is completed. Accordingly he submitted the charge-sheet before the 30 S.C.No.510/2017 court and he can identify the above referred gold biscuit. The witness has identified the Ex.P.4 photograph. As the accused were in judicial custody in connection with aforesaid case of KS Layout Police Station, hence, he submitted a requisition seeking the body warrant against the accused. In his cross-examination stated that during the investigation he did not make enquiry about the owner of the motor bike. He did not conduct test identification parade in the presence of complainant.
50. P.W.13-Mahesh deposed in his evidence that he put the signature about 4 to 5 years back in a Police Station. I was working in Attica Gold Company about few years back. The police have not conducted any mahazar in his presence nor they have seized anything in his presence. He turned hostile nothing has been elicited either in his chief-examination or in his cross- examination.
31 S.C.No.510/2017
51. In this case P.W.1 is the complainant, in her evidence deposed that on 09.11.2016 she came to Bengaluru for the purpose of attending the opening ceremony of her brother's son Sunil and on 12.11.2016 again she came to the house of Sunil to attend the Sathyanarayana pooja. After attending the Sathyanarayana pooja at about 12.00 pm she went to her brother's house near the vacant site by walk, at that time from the opposite direction one person came and dashed her and snatched her one layer mangalya chain and two layers of Avalakki chain and ran away from the spot in two wheeler along with another person and she sustained injury on her knee. In her chief examination stated that the total value of the gold chain weighing 65 grams. Further in her chief examination deposed that the police have shown one gold bullion.
52. P.W.1 in her chief examination stated that one layer Mangalya chain and two layers of Avalakki chain. 32 S.C.No.510/2017 Further in her chief examination stated that the police have shown one gold bullion. Further in her chief examination stated that she identified the accused. In her cross examination stated that her brother is a retired employee of police department, she cannot say that on the day the accused persons have come to the vehicle colour and registration number. It shows that how she can identify the accused persons and the accused persons came in the vehicle. Further in her cross- examination deposed that she has not taken any treatment at hospital and she lodged the complaint to Subramanyapuram police station at 5-00 pm. She lodged the complaint is marked at Ex.P.1, it shows that the complainant has lodged the complaint at 1-00 pm.
53. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she has not owned any documents to show that the gold chain is belongs to her. Further admitted that the complaint was written by his brother and his brother's 33 S.C.No.510/2017 son she has only put the signature on the complaint. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted and her brother and her brother's son prepared the complaint and given the complaint to police. She did not know the contents of the complaint. Further P.W.1 in her cross- examination stated that on the date of the incident there was a busy road and she came to Subramanyapura police station. In the police station the police have shown the disputed gold bullion. The photo of the gold bullion seized by the police is marked as Ex.P.4. Further she has not produced the gold bullion before the court as shown in Ex.P.4. In Ex.P.4 shown the gold bullion is not in her custody. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she cannot say that in Ex.P.4 shown the gold bullion was manufactured out of the chain.
54. The learned counsel for the accused in her cross-examination put the suggestions that her brother is working in the police department and her brother 34 S.C.No.510/2017 influenced the police and registered a false case against the accused. This suggestion is denied by P.W.1. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she signed Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 at the police station. In this case the police have seized the knife. P.W.1 stated that she has not taken any treatment at hospital and there is no injuries found on her. It shows that the accused have not used the weapon. But the police have seized the knife. Therefore P.W.1 evidence is not believable and there is a contradiction in her chief- examination and contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
55. P.W.2 is the spot mahazar witness in his evidence deposed that the police have drawn Ex.P.2 at the spot and he put the signature on it. In his cross- examination stated that at the time of drawing the mahazar, the police have not issued notice to him. The police inspector come to that spot and denied the suggestions that the police have not drawn the mahazar 35 S.C.No.510/2017 at the spot and the police have prepared the mahazar at police station. It shows that police have not drawn the Ex.P.2 at the spot and it is prepared in the police station. Therefore, P.W.2 evidence is not believable.
56. P.W. 3 is the seizure mahazar witness. In his evidence deposed that the police come to the shop of Attica Gold Company along with accused and seized DVR and Lenova system. In his chief examination stated that the police have seized the gold bullion weighing of 40 grams, 26 grams and 33 grams. But police have not produced the said gold bullion and he produced only two bullions before the court. Further P.W.3 in his cross- examination stated that he signed the mahazar at police station and seizure mahazar is marked at Ex.P.8. In his cross-examination deposed that Kumara Swamy Layout police have drawn Ex.P.8 seizure mahazar. At the time of drawing of Ex.P.8 mahazar himself, Mahesh and accused No.3 were present. Except these persons other accused 36 S.C.No.510/2017 persons were not present. He did not know what contents are written in the mahazar. It shows that P.W.3 having no knowledge with regard to Ex.P.8 mahazar and this witness evidence is not believable.
57. P.W.4 is seizure mahazar witness, in his evidence deposed that the police have brought him to Attica Gold company and drawn the seizure mahazar and seized DVR and computer. Further stated that he did not know who are sold the gold ornaments to the Attica Gold Company. It shows that the P.W.4 is having no knowledge with regard to gold sold by whom. Further P.W.4 in his chief examination deposed that he has not seen the gold at police station and police have not seized the gold bullions under Ex.P.8 mahazar. It shows that the P.W.4 having know knowledge with regard to seizure mahazar. Further P.W.4 in his chief examination stated that the police have not recorded his statement. He cannot identified the computer and DVR. This witness is 37 S.C.No.510/2017 treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination also the learned Public Prosecutor has been elicited.
58. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined the P.W.4 in his cross examination stated that at the time of drawing the Ex.P.8 seizure mahazar police have not issued notice to him and further he has not seen that gold ornaments purchased bills standing in whose name and he did not know what contents are written in the Ex.P.8. He has no personal knowledge with regard to the accused and he did not know the name of the accused and address. The evidence of P.W.4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove Ex.P.8 seizure mahazar.
59. P.W.5 is the seizure mahazar witness. In his evidence deposed that the police have drawn the Ex.P.10 38 S.C.No.510/2017 mahazar and seized motorbike. He turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination nor in his cross-examination. Therefore, P.W.5 evidence is no where helpful to the case of the prosecution.
60. P.W.6 is the seizure mahazar witness, he deposed that the police have called him to Kumara Swamy Layout police station. The police have not informed with regard to subject matter of this case. Further the police have not informed to inspection of Attica Gold Company. Police have seized the DVR and CPU and police never seized the gold bullions under Ex.P.8 mahazar and he has not given the statement before the police. The learned Public Prosecutor treated this witness has hostile. In his cross examination also the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined the P.W.6.
39 S.C.No.510/2017
61. P.W.6 in his cross-examination admitted that the police have not directly called him to drawn the mahazar. Further police have not issued the notice to him for drawing the mahazar. He did not know what contents are written in the Ex.P.8 mahazar. At the time of signed the Ex.P.8 mahazar except himself, nobody put the signature on it. The police have never drawn the mahazar at Attica Gold Company. He put the signature to mahazar at police station and he has not informed to the police with regard to this case. The evidence of P.W.6, it shows that he having no knowledge about the facts of the case. Due to hostility of the P.W.6, the prosecution failed to prove Ex.P.8 seizure mahazar.
62. P.W.7 in his evidence deposed that he was deputed to secure the accused. Accordingly he arrested the accused and produced before the court. In his cross- examination stated that he did not know the CCTV footages produced by the Investigating officer before the 40 S.C.No.510/2017 court or not. He cannot say the name of the accused and address of the accused. Further denied the entire suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for the defence. He was not drawn the mahazar at the time of the apprehended the accused.
63. P.W.8 has deposed that he registered the case and submitted FIR to the court. In his cross-examination admitted that the complainant's brother is working in the police department. It shows that on the influence of the complainant's brother, the police have registered the case and they have not seized the gold chain and they have seized gold bullion. Gold bullion is not belongs to this case. Further P.W.8 denied the entire suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defence.
64. P.W.9 has deposed in his evidence that he has received the case file and arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the accused No.1 and accused 41 S.C.No.510/2017 No.2. On the basis of the voluntary statement of A1 and A2, they have been brought to the police station and drawn the seizure mahazar and seized DVR and CPU and also gold bullion. In his cross-examination deposed that he has not drawn the separate mahazar in each branch of Attica Gold Company. Further he has not obtained the opinion of the appraiser. Further he has not collected the CCTV footages. He has not conducted test identification parade of the accused, it shows that the accused persons have not involved in the offences.
65. P.W. 10 in his evidence deposed that he has received the case file from C.W.5 and conducted spot mahazar. In his cross-examination deposed that he has not issued notice in writting to C.W.2 and C.W.3 come to the spot and assist for panchanama and he did not take any signatures of neighbourers house on Ex.P.2. At the time of mahazar, the complainant did not speak anything about the button knife. But she informed about the bike. 42 S.C.No.510/2017 He did not seize any gold chain piece fall on the ground. The evidence of P.W.10 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
66. P.W.11 in his evidence deposed that P.W.7- Pandurangaiah and C.W.12-Mahadevaiah have produced the accused along with motorbike and button knife and two mangalya chains and he seized the said articles by conducting the mahazar under Ex.P.10. In his cross- examination stated that he did not give instruction in writing to Sri.Pandurangaiah, ASI to produce the accused before him. He did not issue notice in writing to C.W.4 and C.W.5 to act as panchas but he summoned them orally. He did not tried to ascertain who is the RC holder of both the vehicles. He further denied the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defence.
67. P.W.12 in his evidence deposed that he deputed Police Sub Inspector Arjun to secure the case 43 S.C.No.510/2017 papers and material objects from Kumara Swamy Layout police station. After verifying the case papers, he found that the investigation is completed and filed the charge sheet. In his cross-examination deposed that during his investigation he did not enquire about the owner of the motorbike. He did not conduct test identification parade in the presence of the complainant. Further denied the suggestions that false charge sheet has been filed against the accused. P.W.13 is the seizure mahazar witness, he turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited either in his chief examination or in his cross- examination.
68. P.W.1 who is the complainant she has not directly seen the accused and she has not identified the accused persons. Police have told to her and she identified the accused persons at the police station. The accused persons snatched chains weighing of 65 grams but police have seized 51.05 grams of gold billion and in 44 S.C.No.510/2017 this case appraiser has not been examined. As per the prosecution case the accused persons stabbed the complainant with knife and police seized the weapon and the complainant has not taken any treatment at hospital. It shows that the accused persons have not used the weapon.
69. Further the accused persons have snatched gold chains but police have seized gold bullions. The complainant has lodged the complaint at 1-00 pm but in her cross-examination she stated that she has lodged the complaint at 5-00 pm. The complainant's brother was working in the police department and on the influence of her brother, the police have seized gold bullions. Further P.W.1 stated that the gold bullions is not in her custody and she has not produced the gold bullions before the court.
45 S.C.No.510/2017
70. P.W.2 is the spot mahazar witness. In his cross-examination stated that the police have not issued notice to him for preparation of mahazar. P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.13 are seizure mahazar witnesses they have turned hostile and nothing has been elicited either in their chief examination or in their cross- examination. P.W.2 to P.W.6 and P.W.13 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove the seizure mahazar.
71. P.W.7 to P.W.12 are the police official witnesses. In their evidence deposed that they have registered the case, arrested the accused and seized the properties and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Except the evidence of P.W. 7 to P.W.12 other independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.7 to P.W.12, this court cannot be convicted the accused persons. There is 46 S.C.No.510/2017 no corroborative evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.13. The police have not recovered the CC Tv footages of the Attica Gold company and further the appraiser has not been examined. Knife has not been used by the accused persons. On the influence of the brother of the complainant, the police have recovered the gold bullions. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the seizure mahazar. When prosecution utterly failed to prove the seizure mahazars, the remaining evidence of the witnesses is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Any how it is the duty of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing sufficient material on record to connect the accused persons. But in the instant case, there are no sufficient materials available on record to connect the accused persons. Therefore, based on the evidence of official witnesses, which remained uncorroborated, it is not safe 47 S.C.No.510/2017 to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences. Hence, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations made against the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt is to be accorded to accused Nos.1 and 2.
72. By perusing the evidence placed on record and over all assessment of the same, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.
73. POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on the above point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable 48 S.C.No.510/2017 under section 397 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of October 2021) (G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Rangamani
P.W.2 Harshavardhan
P.W.3 Suresh
P.W.4 Prakash
P.W.5 Kende Gowda
P.W.6 Gopal
P.W.7 R.Panduranga
49 S.C.No.510/2017
P.W.8 M.Kumaraswamy
P.W.9 Ravi Patil
P.W.10 Prakash Rathode
P.W.11 L.Rajendra
P.W.12 Kempegowda
P.W.13 Mahesh
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a & b) Signatures
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2(a, b & c) Signatures
Ex.P.3 Photo of chain
Ex.P.4 Photo of gold bullion
Ex.P.5 & 6 Photos of Bike
Ex.P.7 Photo of button chaku
Ex.P.8 Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a to d) Signatures
Ex.P.9 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.10 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.10(a) Signature
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.12 Statement of P.W.6
50 S.C.No.510/2017
Ex.P.13 Requisition
Ex.P.14 F.I.R.
Signature
Ex.P.14(a)
Ex.P.15 Voluntary Statement of A1
Ex.P.16 Voluntary Statement of A2
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
- NIL -
(G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU CITY.51 S.C.No.510/2017
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (vide separately) ORDER (G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU CITY.