Bangalore District Court
State By Thyagarajanagar vs Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal on 1 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 1st day of July 2017
PRESENT
*******
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.1161/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Thyagarajanagar
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal
Giri @ Prashanth Raj @
Ashwath
S/o Veeranna Gowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Hosur Village
Moduru Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Srinivasa @ Vasu,
S/o Guligowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.19/B,
2 SC.No.1161/2015
Pipeline, Weavers Colony,
Srinagar,
Bangalore.
3. Jagadeesha @ Jaggu,
S/o Srinivasa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Anupanahalli,
Hoodigere Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk & District.
4. Govinda @ Govindaraju,
S/o Kempegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Chikkakallya Village,
Thippasandra Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
5. Ramdas B. Shet,
S/o Late Beerappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.63, 11th Cross,
Someshwara Jewelers,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
1. Date of Commission : 27.02.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 27.02.2014
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : Accused Nos.1 to 4
are in J.C. and accused
No.5 is on bail
3 SC.No.1161/2015
4. Name of the : Sri.Jayanna R.
complainant
5. Date of :
Commencement of 19.07.2016
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
27.02.2017
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections
397, 411 & 413 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of the charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector, Thyagarajanagar P.S., Bengaluru City against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 411 and 413 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2014 at about 10.45 p.m. the CW.1 Jayanna R. along with his friend Nithin were proceeding on their motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20-Y4905 near 4 SC.No.1161/2015 Corporation Building, 1st Cross, Thyagarajanagar, Bengaluru, at that time totally four persons came on two motor cycles and attacked Jayanna and Nithin in order to get the golden ornaments. They were holding long in their hands and they have given threat to Jayanna and Nithin to handover the golden ornaments and because of such threat Jayanna given his golden chain, golden ring and silver ring to those culprits. Thereafter, all of them went away by giving threat to Jayanna and Nithin. This matter was reported to Thyagarajanagar police on the very day at about 11.45 p.m. and the police registered the crime for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.30/14 against unknown persons.
3. It is the allegation of the prosecution that Byatarayanapura Police registered crime No.171/2014 on 16.04.2014 against many accused including accused Nos.1 to 4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 399, 402, 353 of IPC and under Section 25, 3 of Indian 5 SC.No.1161/2015 Arms Act, 1969. The CW.26 - Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana was the first informant in that case who was the Police Inspector. In order to apprehend all the culprits involved in Crime No.171/2014, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city formed team headed by CW.26 and other Police Inspectors. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on 18.05.2014 the team headed by Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana went to Hindupura, conducted raid on the house occupied by accused Nos.1 to 4 and able to arrest accused Nos.2 to 4. Then the police taking the accused Nos.2 to 4 to Bengaluru city and within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli, the accused No.4/Govind tried to escape and therefore, there was a firing and in that regard criminal case has been registered against him in Crime No.46/14 of Devanahalli P.S. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura P.S. arrested the accused no.1 and also accused no.5. The accused no.1 given his voluntary statement on 03.06.2014 and 6 SC.No.1161/2015 even the accused no.5 given his voluntary statement disclosing the fact that the stolen articles of Jayanna were sold by accused Nos.1 to 4 to accused no.5, in turn the accused no.5 sold those ornaments in Gurupriya Jewellery, Malleswaram owned by Pramod Kumar. The golden chain and one ring of Jayanna were recovered by Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana in the presence of panch witnesses by drawing Panchanama on 05.06.2014. Such recovery was informed to Thyagarajanagar P.S. and after receipt of records relating to seizure Thyagarajanagar Police Inspector found that the accused Nos.1 to 4 of this case committed the robbery on Jayanna and Nithin by holding deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence under Section 397 of IPC. Further, the accused No.5 was the habitual receiver of stolen properties from the accused Nos.1 to 4 and accordingly the Police Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused No.5 for the offence under Sections 411 and 413 of IPC.
7 SC.No.1161/2015
4. The charge sheet was registered in C.C.no.22765/15 on the file of VII ACMM, Bengaluru and the learned magistrate secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 by issuing body warrant. The accused no.5 was released on bail. The learned magistrate committed the case against the accused Nos.1 to 5 to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offence under Section 397 and 413 of IPC are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. After committal the accused Nos.1 to 5 engaged their advocates. The accused no.5 is on bail and the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 has been secured by issuing body warrant and till today the accused Nos.1 to 4 are in J.C. of other cases.
5. After hearing both sides charge has been framed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 397 of IPC. The charge has been framed against the accused No.5 for the offence under Section 8 SC.No.1161/2015 411 & 413 of IPC. The accused No.1 to 5 have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW.s 1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. who have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The accused have not adduced any evidence in their defence.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
8. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 27.02.2014 at 10.45 P.M. in front of House No.41/1, near Corporation 9 SC.No.1161/2015 Building, 1st Cross, 1st Block, Thyagarajanagara, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 4 committed robbery of gold chain with Ohm dollar from the possession of CW.1-R. Jayanna, by showing deadly weapon and thereby committed the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date after committing robbery the accused No.1 to 4 sold the above said golden ornament to the accused No.5 and the accused No.5 dishonestly received the golden chain with Ohm dollar knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 411 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving or dealing with property from accused Nos.1 to 4 knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and 10 SC.No.1161/2015 thereby the accused No.5 committed the offence under Section 413 of IPC?
4. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 to 3 :- In the Negative
POINT No.4 :- As per final order
for the following,
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- The P.W.1 is the victim of the crime, P.W.2 is one of the panch witnesses to Panchanama at Ex.P.6 which was drawn in Crime No.171/2014 of Byatarayanapura P.S., P.W.3 is the owner of Gurupriya Jewellery, Malleswaram, P.W.4 and 5 are the Police Inspectors who have arrested accused Nos.1 to 5.
11. The P.W.1 has stated that about 1 ½ years back himself and CW.4 Nithin Gowda were returning to their house at Thyagarajanagar and when they were near Saibaba Temple at about 10.30 p.m. six persons came 11 SC.No.1161/2015 with macchu and attacked on them. He has also stated that those six persons asked him to handover the golden chain, finger ring and silver ring and accordingly because of the threat he has given his golden chain, golden ring and silver ring to those six persons. He has stated that there was no ornaments or cash with Nithin Gowda and therefore, those six persons left Nithin Gowda. The P.W.1 has spoken to the fact that after this robbery he went to the Police Station and filed report at Ex.P.1. He has also stated that Police came to the spot and drawn Panchanama at Ex.P.2. He has stated that his golden chain was traced out by the Police which is visible in the photograph at Ex.P.3 and he has obtained the interim custody of such chain. This witness has categorically stated that he has not identified those six persons and even now not able to identify the culprits. In the cross- examination the prosecution has suggested to P.W.1 that Police have shown accused Nos.1 to 4 to him and he has 12 SC.No.1161/2015 identified those accused as culprits and given statements at Ex.P.4 and P.5. Such suggestion has been denied by the P.W.1. The accused Nos.1 to 4 not denied the robbery and whereas the accused no.5 has denied the robbery. However, the P.W.1 has categorically stated that there was a robbery by six persons and his golden chain, one golden ring and silver ring were snatched by culprits.
12. In the complaint at Ex.P.1, the P.W.1 has stated that four persons attacked him and they came on motor bikes. But in the evidence the P.W.1 has stated that six persons attacked him and Nithin Gowda. There is contradiction in respect of number of culprits who attacked onpw.1 and his friend. However, such contradiction is not a material contradiction for the reason that the P.W.1 stood to the statement that robbery has been committed on him and Nithin Gowda by showing deadly weapons in order to snatch golden ornaments. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and the Ex.P.1 clearly show that four 13 SC.No.1161/2015 perons have committed robbery by giving threat to P.W.1 and thereby snatched the golden and silver ornaments form P.W.1. Accordingly, I hold that evidence of P.W.1 alone is sufficient to prove the robbery of ornaments as alleged in the case. Accordingly I hold that there was a robbery.
13. The prosecution to prove the Panchanama of the scene of offence produced at Ex.P.2 examined neither the panch witnesses nor the Investigating Officer. The P.W.1 has spoken to the fact of drawing of Panchanama at Ex.P.2. The defence has not denied the statement of P.W.1 about drawing of Panchanama. There is no serious dispute about the robbery on P.W.1 on the spot shown in Ex.P.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 which is not challenged by the defence is sufficient to prove the spot one shown in Ex.P.2. Accordingly, I hold that even though the prosecution not examined the Investigating Officer and the panch witnesses to Ex.P.2, 14 SC.No.1161/2015 through the evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution has proved the spot shown in Ex.P.2.
14. The P.W.2 has stated that the Police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.6 on 16.04.2015 and he does not know the contents of the Panchanama. This witness has denied the contents of Panchanama in the cross-examination conducted by the prosecution. In Ex.P.6 it has been shown that Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana conducted the raid on 16.04.2014 in the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura P.S. based on the information about assembly of more than five persons and preparation of dacoity. In the Panchanama it has been shown that in the raid the Police Inspector arrested some of the culprits and through them about 12 M.O.s have been seized in Crime No.171/2014. The seizure under Ex.P.6 is not relevant to the case in hand. Therefore, even if the prosecution is able to prove the Panchanama at Ex.P.6, it will not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 15 SC.No.1161/2015 5 alleged in this case. More over the P.W.2 has not supported the Panchanama. The P.W.4/Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana drawn this Panchanama and he did not give his complete evidence in respect of the investigation conducted by him in Cr.No.171/14. His evidence has been discarded as he has not given his complete evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove the Panchanama at Ex.P.6. Accordingly, I hold that Panchanama has not been proved.
15. The prosecution has produced the voluntary statements of accused No.1 dated 03.06.2014, accused Nos.2 and 3 dated 18.05.2014 and accused No.4 dated 05.07.2014. All these voluntary statements were made before Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana. In these statements it has been disclosed that the golden ornaments of Jayanna were sold to accused no.5 and accused no.5 in turn sold those ornaments in Gurupriya Jewellery run by Pramod Kumar. The prosecution has also produced the seizure 16 SC.No.1161/2015 Panchanama dated 05.06.2014 which has been drawn by P.W.5/Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana. In the Panchanama it has been shown that golden chain and golden ring of Jayanna were recovered from P.W.3/Pramod Kumar in Gurpriya Jewellery situated at Malleswaram. In order to connect the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 5 to the alleged robbery on Jayanna, the prosecution is required to prove the voluntary statements and more particularly the Panchanama dated 05.06.2014.
16. To prove such fact the prosecution examined Pramod Kumar as P.W.3 and this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses cited in the Panchanama dated 05.06.2014 by name G.N.J. Rudra Prasad and Pramod Kumar have not been examined. The Police Inspectorpw/5 not given his complete evidence. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that accused Nos.1 to 5 have 17 SC.No.1161/2015 given their voluntary statement disclosing the fact of sale of stolen properties to accused no.5 and sale to those ornaments to Pramod Kumar in Gurupriya Jewellery and thus, I hold that the prosecution has not proved the voluntary statements, discovery and the seizure of stolen properties of Jayanna. When there is no seizure at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 5, it cannot be held that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the robbery and the accused no.5 has received the stolen property.
17. The P.W.4 has stated that along with P.W.5 he went to Hindupura to arrest the accused Nos.1 to 4 and on 18.05.2014 they have arrested the accused Nos.2 to 4 at Hindupura. He has also stated that when himself and his staff were taking the accused Nos.2 to 4 to Bengaluru, the accused no.4/Govind attempted to escape and therefore, there was a firing. Accordingly, he has filed his complaint before Devanahalli P.S. which came to be registered in Crime No.46/14. The evidence of P.W.4 has been denied 18 SC.No.1161/2015 by the accused. However, the P.W.4 has stood for his examination-in-chief. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 clearly shows that on 18.05.2014 early in the morning the accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested at Hindupura. The arrest of accused Nos.2 to 4 on 18.05.2014 has not been disputed by the accused. To that extent the evidence of P.W.4 has been accepted. This evidence of P.W.4 would not come to the aid of the prosecution to prove the robbery said to be committed by accused Nos.1 to 4 or receipt of stolen property by the accused no.5.
18. Considering these evidence on record I hold that through the evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution established the robbery of golden and silver ornaments of P.W.1 on 27.02.2015 at about 10.45 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Thyagarajanagara P.S. The prosecution has not proved the recovery of stolen properties either from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 5 or at the instance of those accused and thereby failed to establish that accused 19 SC.No.1161/2015 Nos.1 to 4 committed the robbery on P.W.1 and they have sold the stolen property to the accused no.5.
19. POINT NO.2 & 3 : There is an allegation against the accused No.5 that he received the ornaments of Jayanna from the accused Nos.1 to 4 knowing that the ornaments were stolen properties. Further there is an allegation that the accused No.5 was habitually receiving the stolen properties. In order to prove such allegation again the prosecution relied upon the evidence discussed above. It is concluded that there is no evidence on record to believe that accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed robbery on Jayanna and snatched the ornaments. It is also concluded that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 have sold the ornaments to accused No.5 and at the instance of accused No.5 the ornaments have been recovered. The P.W.5 has stated that the accused No.5 was receiving the stolen properties. Such statement is not supported with any 20 SC.No.1161/2015 material. Therefore, absolutely no evidence is produced to prove the allegation made against the accused No.5. Thus, I hold that the accused No.5 is not guilty for the offence under Section 411 or under Section 413 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative.
20. Point No.4- For the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397, and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 & 413 of IPC.
The accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases.
21 SC.No.1161/2015
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.5 and his surety stands cancelled.
The Interim Custody of golden ornaments given to the P.W.1 -
Jayanna is hereby made absolute.
Issue intimation to jail authority accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July 2017).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for prosecution:
PW 1 Jayanna PW.2 M.R. Chandrashekar P.W.3 Pramod Kumar P.W.4 Balegowda P.W.5 K.P. Sathyanarayana
List of documents marked for prosecution: 22 SC.No.1161/2015
Ex.P.1 Complaint by P.W.1 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 Photograph Ex.P.4, 5 Statements Ex.P.6 Mahazar Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.7 Mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.8 Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.9 Complaint Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.10 Mahazar Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.5 MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- NIL
List of witnesses examined for defence: - NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
23 SC.No.1161/2015Accused Nos.1 to 4 produced through J.C. Accused No.5 present.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate detailed judgment) ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 397, and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 & 413 of IPC.
24 SC.No.1161/2015
The accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.5 and his surety stands cancelled.
The Interim Custody of golden ornaments given to the P.W.1 - Jayanna is hereby made absolute.
Issue intimation to jail authority accordingly.
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
25 SC.No.1161/201526 SC.No.1161/2015