Bangalore District Court
Malleshwaram Ps vs A1 Syed Uzer on 2 April, 2026
KABC010236312021
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 2nd day of April 2026.
S.C.No.1288/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by
Malleshwaram Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Syed Uzer,
S/o.Syed Abdul Haneef,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at.No.201/1, 5th Main,
3rd Cross,
Near VIVA Hospital,
Meenaz Nagar,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.K.L., Advocate)
2. Sameer Pasha,
S/o.Yasin Pasha.
..... (Split-up)
2 S.C.No.1288/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, the case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
That on 10.12.2020 between 6-30 and 7-00 a.m., the accused Nos.1 and 2 had wrongfully entered the house of C.W.1 situated at No.27/1, 3rd Cross Road, M.D.Block, within the limits of Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru and forcibly robbed the cash of Rs.1,500/-, Oppo mobile phone and ATM Card on the point of dragger, also took the pin number and password of the mobile phone and drawn the amount. Thereby the accused are alleged to have 3 S.C.No.1288/2021 committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
4. After committal of the case, the accused No.2 remained absent before the court. Hence the case against accused No.2 was split-up and ordered to register split-up case against him.
On securing the presence of the accused No.1, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. The accused No.1 has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The case is posted for prosecution evidence. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked 27 documents from Exs.P.1 to 27 and M.Os.1 to 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.1 has denied the incriminating evidence stated against him. The accused No.1 has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that 10.12.2020 between 6-30 and 7-00 4 S.C.No.1288/2021 a.m., the accused No.1 along with split-up accused No.2 have wrongfully entered the house of C.W.1 situated at No.27/1, 3rd Cross Road, M.D.Block, within the limits of Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru and forcibly robbed the cash of Rs.1,500/-, Oppo mobile phone and ATM Card on the point of dragger and also took the pin number and password of the mobile phone and drawn the amount and thereby the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative,
POINT No.2 - As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 : The case of the prosecution is that
on 10.12.2020 between 6-30 and 7-00 a.m., the accused Nos.1 and 2 had wrongfully entered the house of C.W.1 situated at No.27/1, 3 rd Cross Road, M.D.Block, within the limits of Malleshwaram Police Station, Bengaluru and forcibly robbed the cash of Rs.1,500/-, Oppo mobile phone and ATM Card on the point of dragger, also took the pin number and password of the 5 S.C.No.1288/2021 mobile phone and drawn the amount. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
9. P.W.1-Sri.Manjappa has identified his signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.1) as per Ex.P.1(a). He stated that he was working in the house of C.W.1. The accused had committed robbery in the house of C.W.1 by entering into the house of C.W.1 and had taken away ATM Card, cash purse. One Nagaiah brought the CCTV footage pertaining to the use of ATM Card and the same was seized by the police. He stated that he had seen the CCTV footage. He has identified the accused persons.
The examination in chief was deferred for identification of the CD, but thereafter even after issuance of proclamation the witness did not appear before the court and hence his evidence stands discarded.
10. P.W.2-Sri.Harry D'Souza has stated that on 10.12.2020 between 6-30 to 6-45 a.m., when he was sleeping in his house, 2 boys came inside his house and they were holding the talwar. He stated that on the same day he has not properly closed the main door of the house. He stated that they kept talwar on his neck and demanded money and he told them that he has no money and he is on loan. At that time a cash of Rs.1,500/- Oppo company mobile phone, Syndicate 6 S.C.No.1288/2021 Bank ATM Card were taken by the accused. As he was frightened, he gave them ATM Card pin. He stated that he had not locked his mobile and the same could be used by anyone. As he was very much frightened, he did not go to the Police Station immediately. But on the same day at 10'0 clock he went to the Police Station. As the Police Inspector was not there in the Police Station, he went to the bank which was situated nearby, he gave a requisition to stop payment. On the same day he gave a complaint (Ex.P.2) in the Police Station. He stated that they had used the ATM card and had drawn Rs.63,310/-. On 14.12.2020 the police came to his house and conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.3). On 12.12.2020 he modified the amount of Rs.74,000/- mentioned in the complaint as Rs.63,310/-. Also he gave his bank statement (Ex.P.5) and further complaint (Ex.P.4). On 14.12.2020 he was called to the Police Station where they showed him the CCTV footage wherein the people who had robbed from his house could be drawing money from the ATM. He stated that the people who were drawing the money from ATM and the accused present before the court are one and the same. He stated that the name of the accused is Pasha and he has identified him in the Police Station. He stated that as he was drowsy, he does not know as to who did what and as to who was holding talwar in the hand. He stated that as it was dark in his house when they took the ATM Card and money from him, as such 7 S.C.No.1288/2021 he was not able to see him. He further stated that he had kept the ATM Card, purse and mobile phone on the table of the house and the same was taken by them. He stated that they did not snatch it from his hand.
It is pertinent to note that the prosecution was not able to play 3 CDs in the open court and the witness has not identified the contents of the CD. As such the CDs were not marked.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that in his complaint dated:12.12.2020 he has stated that Rs.64,310/- was taken from his bank account. He admitted in his further complaint that he has stated that the boys were holding a dragger were aged between 18-22 years and they had threatened him. He admitted that he had given his bank ATM Card to them. He admitted that on 14.12.2020 he has identified the accused by name Syed Husur and Sameer Pasha and has given his statement. He admitted that they had snatched his ATM Card and mobile phone from him. He admitted that he can identify the dragger used by the accused No.1 at the time of committing the offence. He has identified the dragger (M.O.1) and Oppo mobile phone (M.O.2). He stated that he had got released Rs.64,310/- from the Police Station. He has identified 8 S.C.No.1288/2021 the photo of the same (Ex.P.6). He admitted that he had seen the accused on that day.
11. P.W.3-Sri.Prakash Kumar has stated that on 15.12.2020 between 8-00 to 8-30 a.m., two boys came on a 2 wheeler and asked him for Rs.2,000/- as they had to take their mother urgently to the hospital. He gave them Rs.2,000/-, but he does not know their names. As 5 years have lapsed, he cannot identify them. He has not identified the accused before the court. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. The police did not enquire with him.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.7.
12. P.W.4-Sri.Nagappa Jogi, Head Constable has stated that C.W.17 had instructed him to examine the CCTV footage in front of the house of C.W.1 and produce it before him. Accordingly on 11.12.2020 at 10-00 a.m., he went to the place of incident and he inspected the house of Masoor Ahamed. At 5-45 a.m., a black colour 2 wheeler came near the house of C.W.1 and it had stopped in 3 rd Cross Road and they went inside the house of C.W.1, at 6-50 they came out of the 9 S.C.No.1288/2021 house. He has seen the CCTV footage from 5.45 a.m., to 7-00 a.m., and he then copied the same to a pen drive. He purchased the CD of HP company and in a Cyber Centre he transferred the video recording from the pen drive to the CD. He furnished the CD before C.W.17 in the Police Station and gave a report (Ex.P.8). On 13.12.2020 he along with C.Ws.14 and 16 were deputed to trace the accused persons. At 9-00 a.m., they traced the accused along with a black colour 2 wheeler. They apprehended the accused and produced them along with 2 wheeler at 7-00 p.m., before C.W.18 and C.W.14 gave a report (Ex.P.9). On 30.12.2020 as per the oral instruction of C.W.18, he went to HDFC Bank and gave the requisition to the Bank Officer and received the acknowledgment and produced it in the Police Station. He stated that in this regard he has not given any statement or report.
As the witness has not fully supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as partly hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 30.12.2020 he gave a signed report as per Ex.P.10. He admitted that on 17.12.2020 the Investigating Officer directed him to go to the bank where the money was drawn from ATM and secure the CCTV footage, accordingly he went to HDFC bank and met the Manager Sri.Sravan,K.P. He admitted that the 10 S.C.No.1288/2021 Bank Manager gave him 2 CDs and he produced the same before C.W.18. The 2 CDs are marked as M.Os.3 and 4. Also he identified the CD (M.O.5) obtained from the house of Masoor.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that the accused is in noway connected with this case. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was brought from their house on the ground of enquiry and they have falsely implicated them in this case. He admitted that he has not furnished any certificate for having produced the CD. He has denied the suggestion that the CCTV footage has been created by him. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
13. P.W.5-Sri.Narasimhaiah, Retired A.S.I., has stated that on 10.12.2020 at about 9-00 p.m., he received the complaint (Ex.P.2) given by C.W.1 and registered the FIR (Ex.P.11) in Crime No.149/2020. On 11.10.2020 he along with C.Ws.1, 2 and 3 went to the place of incident and conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.3) from 10-00 to 11-00 a.m. On the same day C.W.15 secured the CCTV footage from the surroundings of the place of offence in a CD (M.O.5). He has also received the report (Ex.P.8). He has identified the accused before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for 11 S.C.No.1288/2021 the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he received a false complaint and registered a false FIR. He has denied the suggestion that he has created the false spot mahazar in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
14. P.W.6-Smt.Geetha Thatti, P.S.I., has stated that on 12.12.2020 she received the further complaint (Ex.P.4) from C.W.1. On 13.12.2020 C.W.19 deputed her along with C.Ws.14 to 16 to trace the accused along with the stolen property. On the same day C.Ws.14 to 16 produced before her the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Suzuki Access vehicle and gave a report (Ex.P.9). She arrested the accused and recorded their voluntary statement. On the same day between 9-00 to 9-15 p.m., she seized Suzuki vehicle and Oppo mobile and Syndicate Bank ATM Card from the accused as per seizure mahazar (Ex.P.14). She has identified the 2 photographs (Exs.P.16 and 17). She has recorded the statements of witnesses. As per the voluntary statement of accused No.1 (Ex.P.13), on 14.12.2020 he took them to his house and produced a black colour pouch with a dragger and cash of Rs.41,000/- and the same was seized in the presence of C.Ws.6 and 7 by conducting mahazar (Ex.P.18) from 1-00 to 2-00 p.m. She has identified the photograph of the cash (Ex.P.6). She gave the report (Ex.P.20) to C.W.19. She has 12 S.C.No.1288/2021 identified the dragger (M.O.1) and mobile (M.O.2). She has identified the accused before the court.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, she has denied the suggestion that C.W1 has not given any further statement as the same is not there in the file. She has denied the suggestion C.W.19 has not deputed her to carry out the investigation. She has denied the suggestion that no property was seized from the accused persons. She has denied the suggestion that she has created the voluntary statements of the accused which was not given by the accused. She has denied the suggestion that without conducting any investigation, she has given a false report.
15. P.W.7-Sri.B.K.Manjaiah, Retired Dy.S.P., has stated that on 14.12.2020 he received the case file from C.W.18. Also C.W.18 gave a report (Ex.P.20) for having arrested the accused and seizing the property from their custody. He then produced the accused before the court. He recorded the statements of C.Ws.10 to 15. On 16.12.2020 C.W.1 came to the Police Station and gave further complaint and on receiving the same, with the permission of the court he changed Section 384 of IPC to Section 397 of IPC. On 17.12.2020 he gave a requisition (Ex.P.22) to HDFC Branch Manager to provide them with the ATM footage pertaining the 13 S.C.No.1288/2021 withdrawal of money from Syndicate Bank account of C.W.1. He also received the account statement of C.W.1 from Canara Bank as per Ex.P.24. On 30.12.2020 C.W.15 who received the CCTV footage, 2 CDs and bank letter (Ex.P.25) from the Bank Manager of HDFC Bank produced it before him along with the report (Ex.P.10). On the same day between 4-00 to 6-00 p.m., in the presence of C.Ws.8 and 9 he seized the CD by conducting seizure mahazar (Ex.P.1). On 5.03.2021 as per the order of the court he released the 2 wheeler bearing No.KA-05-KZ-3825 to the mother of accused No.1. On completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. He has identified the accused and M.Os.3 & 4.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has created the mahazar, bank statement and CD for this case. He has denied the suggestion that the accused cannot be seen in the CCTV footage. It is elicited that he had not sent the CCTV footage to FSL to obtain the opinion as to whether it was edited or morphed. He has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused persons.
16. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is at first necessary to note that C.W.9 who has been examined as P.W.1 has 14 S.C.No.1288/2021 not appeared to the court even after issuance of proclamation for further examination in chief Hence his evidence stands discarded.
17. Further in the present case C.W.1/P.W.2 is the victim and the complainant. Even though he has deposed about the incident, he has given contradictory evidence regarding the identification of the accused, the manner in which the alleged incident took place. Even though he has stated about the alleged incident, he has specifically deposed that it was dark in his house, so he was not able to see them. He has also stated that the people who can be seen in the CCTV footage were in the Police Station. But at the same time he has stated that as he was in drowsy, he does not know as to who did what and who was holding a weapon. Only in his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted all the suggestions made to him. Here itself it is pertinent to note that in his complaint (Ex.P.2) dated:10.12.2020 he has stated that Rs.74,000/- has been drawn from his account through ATM. In his further complaint (Ex.P.4) dated:12.12.2020, he has stated that by oversight and due to typographical error he has mentioned that Rs.74,000/- has been drawn, but Rs.64,310/- has been drawn from his account. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the original complaint is not placed before the court. Even otherwise the evidence of C.W.1 is not of 15 S.C.No.1288/2021 much help to the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused persons.
18. The whole prosecution case is based on the CCTV footage received from HDFC Bank ATM from where the accused are alleged to have used the Syndicate Bank ATM Card of C.W.1 and had withdrawn Rs.64,310/-. But to prove the same, the prosecution has failed to examine the Manager of HDFC Bank who gave the CCTV footage in CDs to C.W.15. In the absence of the evidence of Manager of HDFC Bank as to from where the CCTV footage has been recovered and also in the absence of the Certificate under Section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act, the CCTV footage cannot be relied upon. Even if one has to ignore that CCTV footage is not supported by the evidence of the Manager of HDFC Bank. Then the Investigating Officer should have sent the 2 CDs to the FSL to verify as to whether they are edited or morphed as CD has not been seized from the source in the presence of witnesses. Also the same has not been secured by the Investigating Officer in the Police Station after C.W.15 produced it before him on receiving the same from the Manager of HDFC Bank. As such the CCTV footage relied by the prosecution cannot be relied upon to prove the identity and alleged offence of the accused.
19. Further the seizure mahazar witnesses have not 16 S.C.No.1288/2021 been examined before the court to prove that the weapon, mobile, ATM Card and 2 wheeler was seized from the accused persons.
20. In view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused persons. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offence alleged against him. As such it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. Hence, the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
21. POINT No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.1 stands cancelled.17 S.C.No.1288/2021
M.Os.1 to 5 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up accused No.2.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of April 2026) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Manjappa
P.W.2 Harry D'Souza
P.W.3 Prakash Kumar
P.W.4 Nagappa Jogi
P.W.5 Narasimhaiah
P.W.6 Geetha Thatti
P.W.7 B.K.Manjaiah
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.4 Further Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.5 Bank Statement
Ex.P.6 Photo
18 S.C.No.1288/2021
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.3 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.8 Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.9 Report
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of C.W.14
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.10 Report of P.W.4
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.11 FIR
Ex.P.12 Property Form
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.13 Voluntary Statement of accused No.1
(relevant portion)
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of accused No.1
Ex.P.14 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of accused No.1
Ex.P.14(c) Signature of accused No.2
Ex.P.15 Property Form
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.16 Photo
Ex.P.17 Photo
Ex.P.18 Mahazar
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.19 Property Form
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.20 Report
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.20(b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.21 Memo
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.21(b) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.22 Requisition
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.23 Requisition to the court
Ex.P.24 Requisition
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.25 Bank letter
19 S.C.No.1288/2021
Ex.P.26 Property Form
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.27 Photo of the CD
List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Dragger M.O.2 Oppo Mobile Phone M.O.3 CD M.O.4 CD M.O.5 CD
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2026.04.02
17:46:05
+0530