Bangalore District Court
Captain Retd. M.L.Sathijha vs J N Suresh on 29 September, 2025
KABC030217722014
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU
PRESENT : Smt. Lathadevi G. A., B.A.L., L.L.B., L.L.M.,
39th A.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
CRIMINAL CASE NO:7691/2014
Dated this the 29th day of September 2025
BETWEEN :
COMPLAINANT : The State by,
Subramanyanagara Police Station
(By learned Sr.APP)
Accused : 1. Sri. J. N. Suresh,
S/o Raju,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.38, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Lakshmidevi Nagar,
Nandini Layout, Bangalore. - Split up
2. Sri. H. K. Shivanna,
S/o Late Kalegowda,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.7, 3rd Cross,
Laibrary Road, Talaghattapura,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bangalore.
2
C.C.7691/2014
3. Sri. Shankarshan Acharya,
@ Shankaracharya,
S/o Late Gokulchand Acharya,
Aged about 37 years,
C/o Chandrappa Building,
Ullas Road, Marappanapalya,
Yashavanthapura, Bangalore. - Split up
4. Sri. S. Y. Nagaraju,
S/o Yarrappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Sulanayakanahalli Village,
Y. N. Hosakote Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur.
[Rep.by A1 to A4 - Sri. Noorpasha Muddabali
Advt.]
1. Date of offences : 09.01.2014
2. Date of report : 09.01.2014
3.Name of the complainant : Sri. L. Satheeja
4.Date of recording evidence : 19.07.2016
5.Date of closure of evidence : 25.06.2019
6. Offences alleged : U/Sec.457, 380, 381 r/w Sec.511 of
IPC.
7. Opinion of the judge : Acquitted
3
C.C.7691/2014
: JUDGMENT :
The PSI, Subramanyanagara Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 381 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
That on 08/09.01.2013 in the night accused No.1 to 4 within the jurisdiction of Subramanya Nagar P. S. attempted to commit theft, of ready-made cloths in a Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. by using duplicate keys of the godown of Cw1's warehouse by entering in the warehouse godown of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., the said accused are stated to be working in the said company as servants and employees. Hence the accused are alleged to have committed offence U/Sec.457, 381, 380 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.4
C.C.7691/2014
3. That Crime was registered in Subramanyanagara Police Station bearing Crime No.05/2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457, 380, 381 r/w Sec.511 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380, 381 r/w Sec.511 of IPC and this court has taken cognizance for the above said offences.
4. The accused No.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and they have been enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers was furnished to accused No.1 to 4 as per Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard accused No.1 to 4 advocate on charge, charge has been framed, wherein the accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and have claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused No.1 to 4 under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is 5 C.C.7691/2014 recorded, wherein the accused No.1 to 4 have denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
7. The following points that arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on night of 8/9.01.2013 the accused persons have committed theft of ready-made cloths within the jurisdiction of Subramanyanagara P.S. by breaking the lock of the warehouse of Cw1's i.e., Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., situated at No.123, Rajajinagar, West of Card Road, Subranyanagar, Bangalore by using duplicate key and thereby accused persons with common intention have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.457 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.?
2. In above said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention stolen ready-made cloths from the warehouse of Cw1 worth Rs.1,38,380/-
and thereby accused persons have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.380 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.?
6
C.C.7691/2014
3. In above said date, time and place, the accused persons were employees of the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd.,with common intention they were entered the warehouse with an intension to stolen the ready-made cloths worth of Rs.1,38,380 and thereby accused persons have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.381 r/w Sec.511 of IPC.?
4. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 3 : Negative
Point No.4 : As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3 : These points are interlinked and they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
10. Cw1 who is the complainant has deposed in his evidence that, on 08.01.2014 at 10.30 pm by using duplicate key, the accused is stated to have illegally trespassed and 7 C.C.7691/2014 tried to commit theft of ready-made cloths. He came to know about the same, he had informed the police. That police had came to the godown and at that time, one accused is stated to be inside the godown, second accused is stated to be outside the godown, that further deposed the police had caught hold the accused and the stolen cloths. Further Pw1 states that one accused had hidden himself in the godown he was arrested at 03.45 am by the police. Hence he having lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 for theft of cloths worth Rs.1,38,380/-. Further has deposed about seizure mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P.2 and spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3. Pw1 had identified the three photographs containing the cloths which were seized and marked as Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.8.
11. Pw1 in the cross examination states that, he found the accused in the godown, he had informed the police and accused had been arrested by the police. 8
C.C.7691/2014
12. Pw4 is the Manager has deposed in his chief evidence that, on 08.01.2014 in the night after the completion of the work he had locked the godown that Cw6 had sought for the key of the godown, at 9.00 pm, but he came to know that key was missing, but at 3.00 to 4.00 am he came to know that accused No.1 was committing theft. Hence had informed the police about the incident. Though Pw1 claims that, at 10.30 pm the accused having unlawfully entered and having committed the theft, but Pw4 claims that at 3.00 to 4.00 am the accused having committed theft.
13. Pw4 deposes that the accused No.2 was the security guard of the said, Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., that he does not know about the accused No.4 has deposed about the seizure of the clothes by the police as per Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.12 photographs.
14. Though in the cross examination admits that, the accused No.2 was working as a security guard of the said 9 C.C.7691/2014 Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., but has not spoken about the accused No.4.
15. In the present case Pw2 is the mahazar witness has deposed about mahazar carried by the police on 09.10.2014 at 11.30 am as per Ex.P.3. In the cross examination admits that, the police had not shown the accused who are alleged to have committed the theft in the present crime.
16. Pw3 is the employee of the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., in his chief evidence deposes that, he was called by the Subramanyanagar Police Station and was asked to count the number of clothes existing in the three plastic bags, but in the cross examination states that, he had not signed on the three plastic bags in which he counted the cloths. Further has admitted to the suggestion that, apart from counting the clothes at the time of mahazar he does not know anything else about the present crime. Further has stated that he does not know at what time the seizure mahazar has been drawn. 10
C.C.7691/2014
17. Evidence of Pw5, Pw7 has been expunged who are the employees of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., who have failed to appear for cross examination.
18. Pw6 is the employee of the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., has deposed in his chief evidence that, the accused No.1 was selling tea i.e., Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., and accused No.2 to 4 were working as security guard as employees in the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. Further deposes that on 08.01.2014, Cw6 had informed Pw6 the theft is taking place in the company, hence Cw7 to Cw9 and Cw11 had gone to godown and noticed accused No.1 using the duplicate key having stolen three bags of clothes, but he has not deposed about other four accused. Further admits about Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.12 stolen clothes before the court. In the cross examination states that captain Satija had informed about the incident at 8.45 p.m. that he leaves his work at 07.00 pm, his house is near by to the said company as soon as he came know about the said incident, he came to godown, at 11 C.C.7691/2014 that time Manjunath, Hariharan, Prakash, Mukheja and Sunil Raheja are stated to be present and that the Pw6 had seen the accused No.1 entering into the godown. All the above persons who claims to be the company employees having seen the accused committing the theft as per Ex.P.6 who states that theft as alleged to have been committed at 8.45 pm, but as per Pw1 theft was committed at 10.30 pm., he deposes that there are three and another accused were available in the godown, but the same evidence is not deposed by the Pw4. Pw6 speaks only about the accused No.1 who claims that after receiving information from captain Satija he came down from his house and saw accused No.1 committing theft. The same evidence is not deposed by Pw1. As per Pw4s evidence the accused No.1 was caught hold by the police Pw4 states that accused No.2 and 3 were security guard and he does not know about accused No.4.
19. In the present case Pw10 is the Investigating Officer has deposed about having receiving complaint as per Ex.P.1, 12 C.C.7691/2014 having lodged FIR as per Ex.P.15, having conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.3, further deposes that accused No.1 was caught hold along with two duplicate keys and three stolen plastic covers with clothes. Hence he having conducted Ex.P.13 in the presence of Cw4 and Cw5 having seized three covers consisting of clothes and alleged two keys. Though Pw2 and Pw3 claims to be the mahazar witnesses have not spoken about the duplicate keys stated to have been used for unlocking the godown room.
20. As per the evidence of the Pw1 all the four accused are stated to be inside and outside the godown, but the same evidence is not deposed by Pw10. As Pw1 claims that the police had gone down to the spot of offence at the time of incident itself and having seen all the four accused. The said evidence is not deposed by any of the police officials in the present case. Pw10 further deposes that subsequently he had appointed Cw12 to Cw14 to procure the other three accused, hence on 10.01.2014 other three accused were 13 C.C.7691/2014 arrested and produced before him and that on enquiry came to know that the accused having committed theft. That report has been given by Cw12, that effect, which has been marked as Ex.P.16. Pw10 is further deposes that he had obtained voluntary statement of other three accused and on 09.12.2014 Pw10 had obtained statement of Cw4 and 15 and on 11.01.2014 he had obtained statement of Cw6 to Cw11 and he had filed the charge sheet on finding the guilt of the alleged offence.
21. Pw8 is the Head Constable he has deposed that he along with Cw14 and 15 were appointed to search the accused. Hence they had procured the accused and reported to Cw12 as per report Ex.P.14. In the cross examination admits that he has not produced any documents to the IO to reveal, that the accused were working as employees in the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. Though in the present case accused No.2 and 4 are claimed to be the employees of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., there are no documents produced 14 C.C.7691/2014 to that effect by the complainant nor investigating officers to prove the alleged offence that the accused being the employees of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., have attempted to commit theft being employees during night hours in godown, wherein clothes were stored U/Sec.381 of IPC.
22. Pw9 is the mahazar witness has turned hostile to Ex.P.13 mahazar and has failed to identify the seized articles as per Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.12, photographs, in the present case.
23. In the present case on detailed discussion there is no consistent evidence depose by the complainant / Pw1 and other employees of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., which reveals doubt about the prosecution case. There are no documents produced to prove that the accused No.2 and 4 were the employees of the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd. In the present case Pw4 claims to be the Manager of the Cw1's company Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., but he is not deposed with clarity and specificity, that the accused was an employee in the Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., claims that 15 C.C.7691/2014 accused No.2 is the security guard to the Cw1's company and claims that the accused No.2 was a contract employee, but to that effect also no documents are produced. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
24. Point No.2: In view of my findings, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 and 4 are acquitted for the offence alleged against them punishable U/Sec. 457, 380, 381 r/w Sec.511 of IPC. Office is directed to keep the file with split up case.
U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C bail bonds of the accused persons and surety bonds shall be continued till appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly to the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 29th Day Of September 2025).
(Lathadevi G. A.) XXXIX ACJM, Bengaluru.16
C.C.7691/2014 ANNEXURE Number of witnesses examined for Prosecution:
Pw1 : Captain M. L. Sathija Pw2 : Sri. S. Suresh Pw3 : Sri. Mahadeva Pw4 : Sri. Hariharan Pw5 : Sri. Sunil Raheja Pw6 : Sri. Manohar Pw7 : Sri. Prakash Makkija Pw8 : Sri. Rajesh Limbalkar Pw9 : Sri. Narasimhamurthy Pw10 : Sri. Muniraju Pw11 : Sri. B. G. Krishnamurthy
Number of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Estimate list
Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 to 12 : Photos
Ex.P13 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P14 : Report given by CW8
Ex.P15 : FIR
Ex.P16 : Report given by CW12
For Defence :
Nil
Material objects Marked:
Mo1 : Key
(Lathadevi .G .A)
XXXIX ACJM, BENGALURU.