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 4, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By vs Venkatesh @ Harish S/O.Ramakrishn on 10 March, 2016

        IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
         MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU

                  Dated: This the 10th day of March 2016

              PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
                                                    B.A.L., LL.B.,
                           X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
                           Bengaluru City.

                       C.C.No.23162/2012
       Complainant -      State by, Police Sub Inspector
                          HAL Police Station
                                     /vs/
       Accused            Venkatesh @ Harish S/o.Ramakrishn-
                          appa, 21 yrs. Rajunagar Bhovi colony,
                          opposite to Doddamma Temple, next to
                          New Horizon College, Kadubeesana-
                          halli, Bengaluru.


                             JUDGMENT

1. The PSI of HAL police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/S.392 of IPC.

2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 16/6/2012 at around 8.15 PM in front of New Horizon Engineering college, in Kadubeesanahalli, the accused robbed CW.1 of her Gold Chain worth Rs.15,000/- and thereby committed the alleged offence.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in HAL P.S., Cr.No.221/2012 and FIR was submitted 2 CC No.23162/2012 to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas and statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was apprehended and the robbed property was recovered. On completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offence.

4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Accused has appeared before the court through his counsel and has been released on bail. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused for the alleged offences and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 1 witness as PW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. As no incriminating evidence found against the accused his statement u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.

7. The points for consideration is:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 16/6/2012 at around 8.15 PM in front of New Horizon Engineering college, in Kadubeesanahalli, the accused robbed CW.1 of her 3 CC No.23162/2012 Gold Chain worth Rs.15,000/- and thereby committed the alleged offence?
2. What order?

8. My answer on the above points:

Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:

The prosecution in support of its case has examined 1 witness. PW.1 Manjunath is examined as seizure mahazar witness who has turned hostile to the prosecution denying any recovery of robbed property in his presence from the possession of accused and any mahazar drawn in his presence and also denied having made any statement to the police under Ex.P2.

10. Apart from PW.1 the prosecution has not examined any other witness. Neither the complainant nor other mahazar witness and I.O. who have apprehended the accused and recovered the robbed property are examined inspite of providing sufficient opportunity. PW.1 is seizure mahazar witness who has denied the prosecution case entirely. Considering these aspects, there being no evidence against 4 CC No.23162/2012 the accused, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.

11. POINT NO.2:

For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC. Bail bond of accused stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. Interim custody of the property is made absolute.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of March 2016).

(ARJUN.S.MALLUR) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution Defence PW.1 Manjunath. Nil Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 Seizure Mahazar.

Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.

Ex.P2 Statement of PW.1.

Material Objects got marked

-Nil-

X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru