Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By High Grounds P.S vs & 2 Are Acquitted on 6 April, 2018

      IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M.,
                  BENGALURU.

          Dated this the 6th day of April 2018.

            Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.B.
                     VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

                         C.C. NO.25210/2012

     JUDGMENT U/S 355         OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.

1. Sl. No. of the Case         25210/2012

2. The date of commission      03/09/2012
   of the offence
3. Name of the complainant     State by High Grounds P.S.

4. Name of the accused         1. Sowmya Sandeep
                               w/o Vinod Kumar, aged about
                               27 years

                               2. Gerald Wilson s/o Sagayraj
                               aged about 31 years

                               both are r/at
                               No.46, K.Narayanapura Cross,
                               Yalahanka, Bangalore.

5. The offence complained of U/s. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC
   or proved
6. Plea of the accused and   Pleaded not guilty
   his examination
7. Final Order               Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
                             accused 1 & 2 are acquitted.
8. Date of such order        06-04-2018
   For the following:-
                              2                          C.C.25210/2012




                     JUDGMENT

This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI of High Grounds P.S. against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 03-09-2012 the accused 1 and 2 with dishonest intention to have wrongful gain for yourselves obtained the credit card of CW1 and also obtained the expiry date of credit card with regard to advertisement of property rent and thereafter you accused withdraw cash of Rs.40,185.55 and made an attempt to purchase Del Company Lap Top and thereby cheated CW1 as well as HDFC Bank and thereby committed the alleged offences.

3. Accused 1 and 2 were on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC. 3 C.C.25210/2012 The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P4. Since there are no incriminating evidence against the accused 1 and 2 as such recording of 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed.

5. Heard arguments from both the sides.

6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 003-09-2012 the accused 1 and 2 with dishonest intention to have wrongful gain for yourselves obtained the credit card of CW1 and also obtained the expiry date of credit card with regard to advertisement of property rent and thereafter you accused withdraw cash of Rs.40,185.55 and made an attempt to purchase Del Company Lap Top and thereby cheated CW1 4 C.C.25210/2012 as well as HDFC Bank and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What order?

7. The answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS

8. Point No.1:- In order to avoid the repetition of facts taken together for discussion. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2. PW.1, who being the mahazar witness in his evidence has deposed that he don't know the contents of mahazar Ex.P1 and the police have not seized any materials in his presence.

9. Another witness CW2 being the complainant in her evidence she has deposed that I don't know who 5 C.C.25210/2012 has cheated me and the police have not seized any materials in my presence.

10. Except the evidence of PW.1 and 2, no other evidence is available on record to establish the guilt of accused 1 and 2. It is to be noted that, complainant has turned out hostile to the case of the prosecution as he has compromised the matter with the accused 1 and 2. The prayer of Sr. APP for issuance of summons to other witnesses is rejected as no purpose will be served in view of evidence of P.W.1 and 2. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.

11. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused 1 to 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
6 C.C.25210/2012
Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 and their surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 6th day of April 2018.) (M. Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
: Annexure :
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 :         Sarfaraj
PW2 :         Vidya

2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1         :      Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P2         :      Complaint
Ex.P3         :      Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4         :      Statement of PW2

3. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
- NIL -
4. List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-NIL -
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.
7 C.C.25210/2012
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused 1 to 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 and their surety bond stands cancelled.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.