Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The Accused Vignesh vs Is Acquitted on 20 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 20th day of February 2021.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.22445/2017
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 22445-2017
2. The date of commission In between 20/12/2016 to
of the offence 11/04/2017.
3. Name of the State by Byatarayanapura P.S.
complainant
4. Name of the accused Vignesh, S/o. Late Gangadhar, 26
years, R/at No.400, 8th D Cross,
Nethajinagar, K.P. Agrahara,
Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained U/sec. 384 of IPC .
of or proved
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his examination
7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.NVK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 20/02/2021
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Byatarayanapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 384 of IPC .
2
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 11/04/2017 at about 2 p.m. at A.R.N. Sweet Factory belonged to CW.1 at Pantharapalya, Railway Gate, Mysore Road, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, accused by putting CW.2 under threat snatched Cash of Rs. 5,000/- from him and thus committed extortion and thereby committed the alleged offence.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge framed for the offence punishable U/sec.384 of IPC., which was readover and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Then the prosecution examined PWs:1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P4 and MOs - 1 and 10. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused has placed no evidence.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11/04/2017 at 2 p.m. at A.R.N. Sweet Factory belonged to CW.1 at Pantharapalya, Railway Gate, Mysore Road, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police 3 Station, accused by putting CW.2 under threat snatched Cash of Rs. 5,000/- from him and thus committed extortion and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 384 of IPC.?
2. What order?
6.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7.Point No.1:-
It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has extorted money from the servents of complainant in the factory by black mailing them as he is a Government Officer.
8.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and got marked 4 documents and currency notes are marked as Mos.1 to 10. PW.1 is the complainant , Pw.2 is alleged to be an eye witness and PW.3 and 4 are the pancha witnesses. 4
9.CW.1 is examined as PW.1. In the chief-examination he deposed that he knew about the accused and CW.2 to 4. Since 2016, he is running factory about the preparation of sweets by name A.R.N. Sweets. He appointed CW.2 as Manager. On 20.12.2016 at about 2 p.m. he received a phone call from CW.2 and got information that a person came to his factory for inspection. So he instructed the CW.2 to allow him to inspect the factory. Later he received phone call from the said person for demand of money, then he questioned why he has to pay the amount to him. Later he has filed the complaint. He identified the complaint, same is examined as Ex.P1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). He also identified the mahazar, same is examined as Ex.P2 and his signature is marked as Ex.P2(a). He considered as partly hostile and in the cross- examination by the learned Sr.APP he admitted the suggestion that on the date of visit, by the accused to the factory, the accused threatened him that if he did not pay money he will lodge a complaint to the Municipal Corporation and also Pollution Control Board. In the cross- examination he deposed that CW.3 to 6 were also working in his factory . He is running the said factory, since 20 years. He admitted about filing of the complaint by the accused against him on 08.06.2015 and on 23.12.2016 to the BBMP. He further admitted about the incident of bursting of gas in his factory to that effect a criminal case is also registered. Based on the complaint filed by the accused, the BBMP and Pollution Control Board Officers have visited his factory and directed 5 him to shift the same to the outskirts of the City. He does not remember on which date he had filed the complaint and on which date the police have conducted the mahazar. He is also unable to say howmuch duration the police has taken to draft the mahazar. He has given crucial admission that he signed on Ex.P2 in the Police Station. He pleads ignorance to the suggestion that the accused is one of the witness in the case registered against him. He also denied the suggestion that he requested the accused to give evidence in his favour in the case registered against him, but the accused has not accepted his offer therefore he has filed the complaint.
10.CW.2 is examined as PW.2. He is alleged to be the Manager of the factory of the complainant. In the chief-examination he deposed that he knew the accused and CW.1, 3 to 6. He said about the demand of money by accused on 20.12.2016 at about 2 p.m. when the accused came to his factory and made demand for the money by threatening him stating that he will file complaint to the BBMP and Pollution Control Board, but PW.2 was not yielded to the demand of the accused, but the accused has not gone from the factory, then PW.2 has paid Rs.5,000/- to the accused on the said date. PW.2 identified the currency notes of Rs.100/- each. The said 10 currency notes of Rs.100/- each are marked as MOs.1 to 10. He also identified the accused. He is also considered as partly hostile and cross-examined by the learned Sr.APP. He denied the 6 suggestion about payment of Rs.5,000/- to the accused on 11.04.2017 and he also denied his statement. In the cross-examination by accused counsel he deposed that he did not sure on which date the accused visited the said factory, but he said he paid Rs.5,000/- to the accused on the date of visit. He has not given his statement to the police and he also not took permission of PW.1 before payment of Rs.5,000/- to to the accused.
11.CW.3 is examined as PW.3, who is one of the pancha. He simply identified his signature on Ex.P2 and said he did not know the contents of the mahazar and nobody has readover to him. His signature is marked as Ex.P2(b). Even after treating him as hostile by the prosecution, nothing is elicited from his mouth. In the cross-examination by the accused counsel he said he did not know about the boundaries and he did not know of place of mahazar.
12.CW.4 is examined as PW.4. He is also one of the pancha witness and worker of the complainant's factory. In the chief-examination he deposed that PW.1 is the manager and PW.2 is the owner of the factory. About 1½ year back when he was in the factory at about 2 p.m. the accused came to the said factory and took photographs of lady workers, when it was inquired the accused replied to them as he is a officer and then the accused gone to the ground floor and he did not know what 7 happened further. He has not given any statement to the police. He is treated as hostile and cross-examined by learned Sr.APP, but he denied the entire suggestion . Therefore his statement is marked as Ex.P4.
13.When the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has extorted money from the complainant's factory by blackmailing. As per the version of the complainant the accused first came to the factory on 20.12.2016, in the absence of the complainant and he took photographs of the lady workers and also demanded the money by threatening them about filing of the complaint to the BBMP and Pollution Control Board. Second time he visited the said factory on 11.04.2017, again in the absence of the complainant at about 2 p.m. and demanded money by threatening about the filing of the complaint, then the CW.2, who was the manager has paid Rs.5,000/- to the accused and it was informed to the complainant over telephone. The complainant returned to the Bengaluru and filed a complaint on 22.04.2017. It is not stated on which date the complainant returned to the Bengaluru becasuse as per the allegations the accused has extorted money on 11.04.2017, but the complaint is filed after lapse of 13 days i.e., on 24.04.2017 there was no explaination for delay in filing the complaint.
14.In the deposition PW.1 has simply stated about the alleged visit of the accused on 20.12.2016, but he did not spoke about the alleged 8 visit of the accused on 11.04.2017. The complainant has uneqvivocally admitted about the filing of the complaints by the accused against him on 8.6.2015 and 23.12.2016 to the BBMP for violation of the BBMP Rules . He also admitted about the gas burst in the said factory and to that a criminal case is also registered. Even though he denied the suggestion that he offered the accused for settlement in the case registered against him, but by suppressing the complaints filed by the accused and also criminal case registered against the complainant he filed the present complaint. He said he made his signature to Ex.P2 in Police Station. So, it also creats doubt about the mahazar. It appears that in order to put pressure on the accused to give evidence in his favour he ought to have filed the present complaint. If at all the accused really extorted money he would have stated date i.e., 11.04.2017, but he has not whispered anything about the date on which PW.2 alleged to be made payment to the accused . PW.2 who is an eye witness he also did not spoke about the incident dated 11.04.2017 ever after cross-examination by the learned Sr.APP regarding the suggestion about the alleged visit of the accused on 11.04.2017 is denied by him. The PW.3 and 4 alleged to be the employees working in the same factory, but both of them turned hostile, but they did not say anything about the alleged extortion, by the accused.
9
15.The witness summons have been issued to other witnesses several times, but the prosecution has failed to secure the other witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of other witnesses have been dropped.
16.On going through the oral and documentary evidence , there are somany contradictions and omissions. The non-examination of investigating officer is fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove about the seizure of the material objects. Whenever doubt arises in prosecution case, the benefit of doubt will goes in favour of the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above point is in the negative.
17.Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.384 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. 10 MOs-1 to 10 are ordered to be returned to the complainant, after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 20 th day of February 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1) Rajan
2) Koyilaraja
3) Venkatesh
4) Smt.Thenila.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar.
3. Statement of PW.2.
4. Statement of PW.4.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Mos:
1 to 10: 10 Nos. of Rs. 100 currency Notes (Total Rs.1000/-).
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
11 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.384 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
MOs-1 to 10 are ordered to be returned to the complainant, after the appeal period.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 12 13 14 15 16