Bangalore District Court
State By Chamarajpet Police Station vs Mohammed Younus on 12 April, 2021
1 CC.No.9549/15
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL 2021
C.C. No.9549/15
Present: SRI. BALAGOPALAKRISHNA.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : State by Chamarajpet Police Station
V/s.
Accused 1. Mohammed Younus,
s/o.Mohammed Abbas, 25 yrs,
near M.S.ShadiMahal, 6th cross,
near Vinayaka talkies, Pension
Mohalla, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
2. Moula Khan (split up)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 27/07/14
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused No.1 is on bail.
ACCUSED
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.392 of IPC.
2 CC.No.9549/15
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 15/01/21
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 15/01/21
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(Balagopalakrishna.)
XXIV A.C.M.M.,BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PI of Chamarajpet Police Station has filed charge
sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s.392 of
IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that, on 27/7/14 at
about 8.20 pm., the CW 1 was proceeding by walk infront of
house No.9, I cross, Azadnagar, Chamarajpet, at that time,
the accused No.1 and 2 came on a white colour Honda Activa
which was stolen by them and snatched the Mangalasutra of
CW 1, in that process broken chain weighing 15 grams and
another chain weighing 25 grams worth of Rs.90,000/
robbed by the accused and ran away and thereby accused
3 CC.No.9549/15
has committed an offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.
3. In pursuance of the complaint given by the
complainant by name Ranjitha Lokesh. The Police have
registered crime in Cr.No.230/2014 for the offence
punishable U/s.392 of IPC. After conclusion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet
against the accused for the said offence.
4. This court has taken cognizance for the offence
punishable U/s.392 of IPC and issued summons to the
accused and accused No.1 is on bail and case against
accused No.2 is split up.
5. The copy of the charge sheet and other material
documents has been supplied to the accused No.1 as
required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. Heard before framing charge and charges were
framed for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC and read
over and explained to the accused No.1 in the language
known to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for
trial.
4 CC.No.9549/15
7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution has got examined complainant as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Inspite of issue of NBW and
proclamation to other witnesses, their presence was not
secured by the police and their evidence is dropped.
8. Since there was no incriminating evidence found in
the evidence of prosecution, the statement as required
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with. No defense
evidence on the side of the Accused.
9. Heard both side.
10. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on 27/7/14 at
about 8.20 pm., the CW 1 was proceeding
by walk infront of house No.9, I cross,
Azadnagar, Chamarajpet, at that time, the
accused No.1 and 2 came on a white
colour Honda Activa which was stolen by
them and snatched the Mangalasutra of
CW 1, in that process broken chain
weighing 15 grams and another chain
weighing 25 grams worth of Rs.90,000/
5 CC.No.9549/15
robbed by the accused and ran away and
thereby accused has committed an offence
punishable U/s.392 of IPC ?
2. What order?
11. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 In the Negative.
Point No.2As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1 :
The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the
accused, the complainant herself examined as PW.1, in her
examination in chief itself she has supported the incident
that on 27/7/14 at about 8.20 pm., when she was
proceeding by walk infront of house No.9, I cross, Azadnagar,
Chamarajpet, at that time, some unknown persons came on
a white colour Honda Activa and snatched her Mangalasutra
weighing 15 grams and another chain weighing 25 grams
worth of Rs.90,000/ and ran away. In respect of the said
incident, she has given complaint, same is marked at Ex.P.1
and signature at Ex.P1(a). She further deposed that as
shown by her, the police were drawn the mahazar which is
marked at Ex.P.2 and her signature at Ex.P2(a). She further
6 CC.No.9549/15
deposed that since so many years have been elapsed, she is
not in a position to identify the persons who committed
robbery from her. The witness also failed to identify the
accused through V.C.,
At request of learned senior APP this witness has been
treated as hostile witness and permission was accorded to
cross examine her. In the cross examination the learned
Sr.APP suggested that on 30/10/14 she had been to the
Police Station, at that time, she identified the accused who
snatched her chain and also given statement to the police,
same is denied by the witness. She has also denied that she
has given statement as per Ex.P.4.
13. In a case of this nature, the court cannot expect
from the complainant that she should have identified the
culprits. In this case, the witness stated that since so many
years have been elapsed, she is not in a position to identify
the accused, it is quite natural. However, the prosecution can
prove the case through the receiver or any other persons,
who is concerned to the case. But, in this case, the
prosecution except examining the complainant, no other
witnesses have been examined including Investigating officer.
7 CC.No.9549/15
Under such circumstances the prosecution has utterly failed
to prove the guilt against the accused and in my opinion it is
a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.
Accordingly point under reference answered in the
Negative.
14. POINT NO.2 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC. He is set at liberty.
Office is directed to issue release intimation to jail authorities to release the accused No.1 by name Mohammed Younus forthwith if he is not required in any other cases. However, Accused No.1 shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed.
8 CC.No.9549/15It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to keep the original records and property if any in a split up case registered against accused No.2 by name Moula Khan. (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 12 th day of April 2021).
(Balagopalakrishna) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Ranjitha Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature Ex.P3 : Photograph Ex.P. 4 : Statement of PW 1
Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL 9 CC.No.9549/15 Documents marked for the accused: NIL (Balagopalakrishna) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.