Bangalore District Court
The State Through Rajajinagara Ps vs Srinivas.A on 19 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.ACMM, BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. B.A.L.,
L.L.B.
XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU,
C.C.No.8312/2019
Dated : On this the 19th February, 2021
COMPLAINANT:
The State through Rajajinagara PS
(By Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: : Srinivas.A,
S/o Varadarajalu.C.V,
R/at no.203, 7th cross,
1st A block, Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru
( Sri. Manoj.J.S advocate)
1. Date of report of offence : 31012019
2. Date of commission of offence : 31012019
3. Date of arrest of the accused : 01022019
4. Name of the complainant : Sri.Prasanna kumar
5. Date of recording evidence : 18.07.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 12032020
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.170, 171,
419 & 420 r/w 511
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
(Sandesh Prabhu.B)
XXXIXACMM, Bangalore
JUDGMENT
The PI of Rajajinagara PS has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 170, 171, 419, 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: The complainant is working as a head constable in Crime branch of Rajajinagara police station and on 31012019 he along with CW2 were appointed for patrolling duty within the limits of said police station. When complainant and CW2 after making patrolling duty at Prakash nagara and Mariyappanapalya when they came near to Sagar hotel of Dr.Rajkumar road at about 5.50 PM a person had parked a Hyundai Verna car bearing reg.no.KA02MN8202 in front of the said hotel and there exist Beacon red top light which was erected on the said 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 car and also a sticker of Karnataka State Government was sticked to the front glass and MLC pass was kept inside the front glass. When the complainant enquired about the said act of the accused,he failed to give proper answer and when the complainant made serious enquiry the accused told that he erected the said red beacon top light and MLC pass in order to take exemption in toll gate and also to take exemption of parking fare in Government parking places.
3. Based on the complaint given by the complainant the police have registered the case against the accused persons for the offence punishables u/s 170, 171, 419 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC. After investigation the IO has filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the said offences. During crime stage itself the accused was arrested and produced before the court and later he was enlarged on bail. After taking cognizance, the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
4. Heard the prosecution and counsel for the accused about framing of charge and since there were sufficient materials to frame charge, this court had framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 170, 171, 419 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC. The accused denied the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried. Hence the prosecution was given an opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused.
5. Heard the prosecution and counsel for the accused about framing of charge and since there were sufficient materials to frame charge, this court had framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 170, 171, 419 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC. The accused denied the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried. Hence the prosecution was given an opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused.
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, it got examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to 5. Along with the oral evidence the prosecution got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.1 to P12 and also material object as M.O.1.
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. His answers to incriminating circumstances arised in the evidence was denial and chosen to lead any defence evidence. The accused himself got examined before the court as DW1 and produced 6 documents as per Ex.D1 to D6.
8. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution and accused .
9. The points that arise for consideration of this court are as under: 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 ::POINTS::
1. Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on on 31012019 at about 9.50 Pm within the jurisdiction of Rajajinagara police station accused used sticker of MLC Karnataka on Hyundai Verna car bearing registration no KA02MN8202 which is being used by MLC or MP thereby knowingly impersonated as member of parliament and committed an offence u/s 170 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, accused with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he may belongs that class of public servant thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 171 of IPC.
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction accused made an attempt to impersonate as member of parliament 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 thereby cheated the public and committed an offence punishable u/s 419 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC.
4. What Order?
10. My findings to the above points are as under;
POINT NO.1 : In negative
POINT NO.2 : In negative
POINT NO.3 : In negative
POINTNO.4: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
11. Point no.1 to 3 : All these points are
connecting each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and appreciation of evidence, all these points are taken up to give for common consideration.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that The complainant is working as a head constable in Crime branch of Rajajinagara police station and on 3101 2019 he along with CW2 were appointed for patrolling duty within the limits of said police station. When complainant and CW2 after making patrolling duty at Prakash nagara and Mariyappanapalya when they came 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 near to Sagar hotel of Dr.Rajkumar road at about 5.50 PM a person had parked a Hyundai Verna car bearing reg.no.KA02MN8202 in front of the said hotel and there exist Beacon red top light which was erected on the said car and also a sticker of Karnataka State Government was sticked to the front glass and MLC pass was kept inside the front glass. When the complainant enquired about the said act of the accused,he failed to give proper answer and when the complainant made serious enquiry the accused told that he erected the said red beacon top light and MLC pass in order to take exemption in toll gate and also to take exemption of parking fare in Government parking places.
13. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused it got examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to 5. The PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the eye witness to the incident, PW3 & 4 are the witnesses to the spot mahazar and PW5 is the PI who conducted the investigation and 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 filed charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has failed to examine CW4 to 7 and their evidence was dropped as per the order of the court dated 22012020. Along with the oral evidence the prosecution got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P1 to 12 which includes complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, letter written by Secretary of Government of Karnataka, Photographs of the said seized car. The prosecution has also got marked the Beacon red light as M.O.1.
14. Now it is necessary to analyse the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The PW1 is the complainant. The said witness in his examination in chief deposed that on 31012019 he along with CW2 were appointed for patrolling duty within the limits of their police station. The witness further deposed that they after making the patrolling duty at Prakash nagar and Mariyappanapalya when they came near to Sagar hotel of Rajkumar road at about 7.50 PM a white colour Hyundai Verna car parked 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 in front of the said hotel and the said car contains a Beacon red top light, a sticker of Karnataka State Government which is affixed to the front glass and MLC pass which was kept inside the front glass. The witness further deposed that when they came near to said car a person was standing by the side of the car and when they made enquiry with the said person he fails to give proper answer and told that he is a MLA and after some time told that he as MLC. The witness further deposed that when he made further enquiry the said accused told that he is using the said Beacon red top light, State Government sticker in order to take exemption of toll and also payment of fare in parking place. The witness further deposed that thereafter he arrested the said accused and produced the accused along with car and said red top light before the Investigating Officer. The witness further deposed about filing of the complaint as per Ex.P1 and also drawing of the mahazar as per Ex.P.2. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
15. The prosecution got examined PW2 who is the eye witness to the said incident. The said incident in his examination in chief deposed that he had not seen any incident and has not given any statement before the police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined by suggesting about the entire incident but the witness has denied the said suggestion put by the prosecution.
16. The prosecution got examined PW3 and 4 who are the witnesses to the spot mahazar and the said witnesses turned hostile by saying that police have not drawn any mahazar in their presence. Even though the prosecution has cross examined those witnesses by suggesting about drawing of mahazar in the place of incident as per Ex.P2 but the witnesses have denied the said suggestion put by the prosecution. 23 C.C.No.8312/2019
17. Lastly the prosecution got examined PW5 who is the police inspector who registered the case against the accused and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. The said witness has deposed about registering of FIR, drawing of mahazar in the place of incident, seizure of material object, drawing of seizure panchanama, recording of the statement of witnesses, obtaining of letter from under Secretary Government of Karnataka, releasing of the car in favour of its owner, filing of the charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
18. On other hand the accused to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution he himself got examined before the court as DW1. The said witness in his oral evidence deposed that he was making a short educational video to his Madagascar preschool and even though he informed the said fact to the police but the 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 police had arrested him and seized his car. The witness further deposed that he purchased the said Beacon red top light from Amazon and he produced documents to that effect. Along with the oral evidence the DW1 has produced documents as per Ex.D1 to D6 which includes the tax invoice of Amazon.in, script of short educational video, delivery receipt, CD of short educational video, trust deed and brochure of Madagaskar kidsschool. The prosecution has subjected the accused for cross examination.
19. On perusal of the allegation made against the accused he was using the Beacon red top light, Government sticker and a MLC pass in order to take exemption from toll and also take exemption of fare in parking place. The burden heavily lies upon prosecution to establish that the accused had made use of said top light, stickers in the toll plaza and also in parking place in order to take exemption. As it is discussed above to establish the said fact the prosecution got examined the 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 complainant as PW1 who deposed by supporting the case of the prosecution. It is quite common that the PW1 being the police official would depose as per the case of the prosecution. The prosecution cited and got examined PW2 as independent eye witness who turned hostile to the case and even though the prosecution has cross examined this witness nothing worth has been elicited which proves that he was eye witness to the said incident.Further the prosecution has got examined the spot mahazar witnesses as PW3 & 4 who are also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
20. The most important aspect is about the seizure of said material objects from the custody of accused. Even though the prosecution has cited the CW6 and 7 as panchas to the seizure mahazar drawn as per EX.P5 but the prosecution has failed to examine those panchas and their evidence was dropped by this court. Now the question to be consider is whether the prosecution has 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 established about the seizure of said material object from the custody of the accused. As it is discussed above the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of material objects from the panchas witnesses by examining CW6 and 7 but on perusal of the cross examination of PW1 who is the complainant it is the defence of the accused that he is running a kids preschool and for the purpose of education he was making short video and when he was making short video on Raj kumar road, the complainant has filed false complaint against him. The accused got examined before the court as DW1 and in his oral evidence he has reiterated his said evidence. On perusal of the cross examination of the accused he admitted about the seizure of said material objects which includes Beacon read top light, MLC pass sticker and also the sticker of Karnataka State Government. By considering the said admission of the accused it is clear that the police have seized the said material objects from the custody of the accused.
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
21. Now the question to be considered is whether the accused has probabilised his defence that he was making short video on said date for the educational purpose. In order to prove his defence, the accused along with this oral evidence he has produced some documentary evidence before the court. The Ex.D1 is the Amazon tax invoice. On perusal of said Ex.D1 it reveals that on 2801 2019 the accused had purchased the said Beacon top light from Amazon company for total amount of Rs.1,499/. The accused has also prodcued Ex.D2 which is script of short video which was captured by the accused. The Ex.D3 is the CD of said video and on playing of the said video, same reveals that the accused had captured a video of traffic violation. Ex.D4 is the copy of document which speaks about delivery of said Beacon red top light to the accused on 31012019. Further the accused has produced Ex.D5 which is certified copy of truat deed dated 06062017 which reveals that the accused along with other 2 partners had registered a trust 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 by name Madagascar Educational Trust and the said document reveals about establishment of kids school situated at 4th block, 3rd stage, Basaveshwarngara, Bengaluru. Further the accused has produced Ex.D6 which is brochure relating to said Madagascar school which speaks about the existence of said kids school. The prosecution has cross examined the accused elaborately and suggested about the incident that he was using the said Beacon red top light and stickers in order to take exemption of toll and parking fare but the accused had denied said suggestion and he categorically deposed that he was making short video on the said date and even though he informed the said fact to the police but the false complaint has been filed against him. On careful perusal of entire cross examination of DW1 the prosecution is not successful in eliciting any admission that the accused was using the said red top light and stickers in order to take exemption from payment of toll and parking fare. 23 C.C.No.8312/2019
22. The accused by producing said oral and documentary evidence has probabalized his defence that he is running a kids school by name Madagascar kids school and for the educational purpose of said school he was making short video by purchasing the said red top light from Amazon company. The accused has probabalized his defence against to the allegation made by the prosecution.
23. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was making use of said Beacon red light and stickers in order to take exemption from payment of toll and also payment of fare in parking place. Even though the prosecution has leveled said charge against the accused but no investigation has been made that in which place and on what date the accused had took exemption either in toll plaza or in parking place. The Investigating Officer hasnot made any such investigation in order to establish the allegation made against the accused. The 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 Investigating Officer who is PW5 himself admitted that he has not made any investigation about exemption claimed by the accused either in toll plaza or in parking place. On careful appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution even though it has established about seizure of said material object from the custody of the accused but it has failed to establish that accused was making use of said articles in order to take exemption in toll plaza and parking place. On the other hand the accused by examining himself and producing documentary evidence as probabalized his defence that he was making short educational video for the purpose of education to the students of his kids school. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish about the charge made against the accused.
24. It is the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that no man should be punished unless the guilt against 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is discussed above the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 170, 171, 419 and 420 of IPC. Hence for the said reasons this court answer point no.1 to 4 in negative.
25. POINT No.5: In view of discussion held on above points, this court proceed to pass the following: ::ORDER:: Acting u/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 170, 171, 419 and 420 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety shall stand canceled.
23 C.C.No.8312/2019
The interim custody of vehicle bearing No. KA02MN8202 dated 22022019 is hereby made absolute.
The material object which is marked as M.O.1 should be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, Judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 19th day of February 2021) (Sandesh Prabhu.B) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURES List of the Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution Pw.1 : Prasanna Kumar.K.V, S/o Aradhya.K.R.V Pw2 : Devu, S/o Kalipada Pw3 : Pandu.R, S/o Ramayya PW4 : Muniraju Rao, S/o Kandoji Rao PW5 : Ramareddy, S/o Nareppa List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Requisition 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 Ex.P1a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1b : Signature of PW5 Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P2a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2b : Signature of PW3 Ex.P2c : Signature of Manoj Ex.P2d : Signature of PW5 Ex.P3 : Statment of witness Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P4 : Signature of PW5 Ex.P5 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P5a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P5b : Signature of accused Ex.P6 : Statement Ex.P6a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P7 : Photograph Ex.P8 : CD Ex.P9 to 12: Photographs List of MO.s marked on behalf of the Prosecution M.O.1: Beacon Red light List of Witnesses examined on behalf of defence DW1 : Srinivas.C.V List of Documents exhibited on behalf of defence Ex.D1 : Tax invoice Ex.D2 : Video script 23 C.C.No.8312/2019 Ex.D3 : CD Ex.D4 : Photocopy of delivery challen Ex.D5 : Trust Deed Ex.D6 : Brochure of Madagascar Kids school List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence Nil (Sandesh Prabhu.B) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru