Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.2 : Sri. Madhu on 16 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 16 th day of December 2021
:PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R. Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C. No. 96/2020
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Kamakshipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.2 : Sri. Madhu,
S/o. Late Srinivas,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at. Venkateshappa's Rental
House, 10 th Cross, Near
Noble School, Kottigepalya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri Veeresh.M. Advocate)
2 SC No.96/2020
1 Date of commission of offence 20.07.2011
2 Date of report of offence 20.07.2011
3 Date of arrest of the accused 20.07.2011
No.2
4 Date of release of accused on
bail: Accused is in
Accused No.2. Judicial custody.
5 Date of commencement of
evidence 23.09.2021
6 Date of closing of evidence 20.11.2021
7 Name of the complainant N.H.Ramachandraiah
8 Offences complained of Sections 399 & 402
IPC
9 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused
No.2 not proved
10 Order of Sentence As per final-order
3 SC No.96/2020
JUDGMENT
This is a split up charge-sheet filed by the Police Sub-Inspector of Kamakshipalya Police Station against the accused No. 2 Madhu S/o. Late Srinivasa, for the offences punishable Under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
That on 20.7.2011 at about 8 p.m. in the night at Chandana extention, Srigandadha Kavalu, Sunkadakatte behind the open place of Boys hostel of Vokkaligara Sangha college within the limits of Kamakshipalya police station, accused No.2 Madhu along with other accused by holding deadly weapons like Iron rods, clubs etc was hatched a plan and making preparation to commit dacoity by stopping the by passers. Further it is alleged that accused No.2 had assembled in the above place with remaining accused to commit the offence of dacoity by holding deadly weapons. Therefore the accused has 4 SC No.96/2020 committed the offences punishable under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC. It is the further case of prosecution that at the relevant time Pw-1 N.H.Ramachandraiah received credible information of commission of alleged offences.
Therefore he conducted raid on the spot with supporting staff and arrested accused No.1 to accused No.3 with weapons and other contrabands from the spot by drawing mahazar. Thereafter he returned to police station and filed complaint as per Ex.P-2, pursuant to which the present case was registered in Crime No. 483/2011 of Kamakshipalya police station. After a detailed investigation the P.S.I. of Kamakshipalya police station has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons.
3. As noted above this is a split up case registered against accused No.2. It appears that initially accused No.2 was absconding. Therefore the committal court split up the case against accused No.2. Later accused 5 SC No.96/2020 No.2 was secured by the committal court and after completing the formalities as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., the trial court committed the present case to the Sessions Court as required U/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C., since the offences punishable under Secs. 399 and 402 are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Thus the present case is before this court for disposal.
4. Though the accused is granted bail, he has not offered surety. Hence he is still in judicial custody.
5. After hearing the accused No.2 and after perusal of the materials on record, this court has framed the Charge against the accused No.2 for the aforesaid offences. The same was read over and explained to accused No.2. The accused No. 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6 SC No.96/2020
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined only 5 witnesses as Pws 1 to 5 and got marked documents at Ex. P-1 to P-4. Material Objects No. 1 to 7 are also marked for the prosecution.
7. After the evidence of prosecution was closed, the statement of the accused No.2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused No. 2 denied every incriminating circumstances appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any evidence in his defence. Total denial of the case of prosecution and his false implication is the defence of the accused No.2.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
9. The following points emerge for my consideration:- 7 SC No.96/2020
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 20.7.2011 at about 8 p.m. in the night at Chandana Extension, Srigandada Kavalu, Sunkadakatte behind open place of Boys hostel of Vokkaligara Sanga college within the limits of Kamakshipalya police station, Bengaluru, accused No.2 along with other accused by holding deadly weapons like Iron rods, clubs etc., hatched a plan and making preparation to commit dacoity of persons coming on the said road and thereby the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused No.2 along with remaining accused being one of the five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity by holding deadly weapons and thereby the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 402 of IPC?
(3) What order?8 SC No.96/2020
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Points No.1 and 2:- As these points are interlinked with each other, hence they have been taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence on record.
12. It is the specific case made out by the prosecution that on 20.7.2011 at about 7 p.m. when complainant N.H.Ramachandriah, the then P.I. of Kamkshipalya police station, when on duty in station by that time he received credible information to the effect that around 7-8 persons have assembled in the open place behind Vokkaligara sanga boys hostel near Vokkaligara sanga college situated at Chandana 9 SC No.96/2020 Extension, Srigandada kavalu, Sunkadakatte by holding deadly weapons like Iron rods, Clubs etc., and they are making preparation to commit dacoity by way of interfering the by-passers and they are making preparation to commit the offence of dacoity by holding deadly weapons. Immediately the complainant proceeded to the spot along with the staff and after verifying the situation with the help of constables he confirmed the information and conducted a raid on the spot. By that time he could arrest only accused No.1 Sudharshan, Accused No.2 Madhu and accused No.3 Lokesh Nayaka along with 3 Iron rods possessed by the above accused. However the remaining 4 accused fled away from the spot by leaving 4 clubs on the spot. Therefore after conducting the seizure mahazar on the spot between 8.30 to 10.30 p.m. in the presence of panchas namely Gangadhara murthy and Mukunda, the complainant returned to Kamakshipalya police station and filed a 10 SC No.96/2020 complaint along with seizure mahazar and the accused. Pursuant to the same a case is registered in Crime No. 193/2011 of Kamakshiplya P.s. for the offences punishable under Sec. 399 and 402 of IPC is the case of prosecution.
13. To prove the aforesaid case, prosecution could examine only 5 witnesses during the trial as Pw-1 to 5. Pw-1 N.H.Ramachandraiah is the complainant. Pw-3,4 and 5 are the police officials who were subordinated to complainant at the relevant point of time and they are the raiding party members.
14. PW.2 Gangadharamurthy is the attesting witness to the above referred mahazar and the only independent witness.
15. Unfortunately during trial Sri.Gangadharamurthy who is examined as Pw-2 has turned hostile to the case 11 SC No.96/2020 of prosecution. Therefore now the evidence of Pw-1 and Pws 3 to 5 is available on record from which the court has to find out whether accused have committed the alleged offences.
16. As noted above Pw-1 is the complainant. His evidence discloses that he was working as P.I. in Kamakshipalya police station. between August 2008 to June 2011. According to him on 20.7.2011 at about 7 p.m. when he was in station he received a credible information about the incident. Immediately he secured Pw-2 Gangadharamurthy and Cw-3 Mukunda to the station and after explaining them about the facts, he proceeded to the spot in the official jeep along with Cws 4 to 11. It is stated by Pw-1 that after reaching the spot, he got confirmed the information and conducted the raid. He immediately arrested accused No.1 to 3 and remaining 4 accused ran away from the spot by leaving behind 4 wooden clubs on the spot. After enquiry with 12 SC No.96/2020 accused No.1 to 3, they disclosed their names. Therefore he conducted the mahazar on the spot as per Ex.P-1 and seized Mos No.1 to 7 articles. Thereafter he return to the police station and filed report as per Ex.P-2 about the alleged incident which his registered in the above crime number. This is all the evidence given by Pw-1 in the chief-examination.
17. He has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused No.2. The Cross-examination of Pw-1 indicates that adjacent place where the incident occurred is a residential area and it is thickly populated area with the public. If that is the case we cannot expect that the place where the accused alleged to have been arrested is not a isolated and remote area wherein they can commit the alleged offences. Further in the cross- examination of Pw-1 it is elicited that he parked his official vehicle around 200 meters away from the alleged place of occurrence and he overhead the discussions of 13 SC No.96/2020 accused of their making preparation to commit dacoity. If we look at the above evidence of Pw-1 it becomes very doubtful how a man could overhear the conversation between the persons who are standing about 200 meters away from the official vehicle that too in a place which is busy with the public. However in the cross-examination it is stated by Pw-1 that he cannot say which accused was saying what before arrest. Therefore it becomes very doubtful whether the accused were making preparation to commit an offence like dacoity. Mere holding of Iron rods and clubs is not an offence unless the attempt to commit dacoity is proved by the prosecution. It is suggested that he prepared Ex.P-1 Mahazar in the police station and obtained the signatures of panchas. This suggestion is denied as false by Pw-1.
18. The prosecution examined Pw-2 Gangadhara murthy one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-1 mahazar. As noted above Pw-2 has turned hostile to the case of 14 SC No.96/2020 prosecution. His evidence discloses that he is a teacher in a private school located at Sukadkatte. He deposed to the effect that at about 7-8 year prior to his evidence, he was summoned to Kamakshipalya police station wherein the police obtained his signature on Ex.P1 Mahazar. It is catagorically deposed by Pw-2 that police never took him any place to conduct raid nor prepared any mahazar in his presence. No weapons have been seized in his presence. He has not identified accused No.2 Thus one of the independent witnesses to the case of prosecution has failed to support the case of prosecution. Even in his cross-examination also the prosecution has failed to elicit any material worth the name to infer that Pw-2 was present on the spot at the time of raid and mahazar was conducted in his presence. According to Pw-1 he secured Pw-2 to the P.S. and took him to the spot. But according to Pw-2, he summoned only to the station and his signature was obtained in the station. Therefore there is 15 SC No.96/2020 a serious contradiction in the evidence of Psw 1 and 2 regarding Ex.P-1 mahazar.
19. Pw-3 Chandranna was working as Police constable in Kamakshipalya police station during the relevant point of time. He has deposed to the effect that on 20.7.2011 he was on patrolling duty near Sunkadakatte area within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya police station. At around 7 p.m. he received a call from Pw-1 asking him to come to the police station immediately. Therefore he returned to the police station wherein Pw-1 has explained about credible information. Therefore he went to the spot along with Pw-1 in official jeep. It is stated by this witness that the raiding party reached the spot at about 8 p.m. and they stood little away from the spot, after informants have identified the culprits, they conducted raid and apprehended 3 accused persons. This witness has not stated anything about the alleged preparation made by the accused to commit the offence 16 SC No.96/2020 of dacoity. He only stated that after informants have identified the culprits, he conducted a raid and apprehended the accused persons. He has further deposed about spot mahazar and seizure of material objects etc. He ha identified his signature on Ex.P-1 spot mahazar which is marked at Ex.P-1(a).
20. The Cross-examination of this witness suggests that after reaching the spot, they parked the official vehicle around 100 meters away from the spot. However the raiding party were not able to identify the culprits and they were not able to overhead their conversation. He deposed to the effect that there were enough street lights sufficient to identify the by passers. Even still he deposed that it was impossible to identify the culprits in a dark night from a distance of 100 meters. Despite the same, he denied the suggestion as false that accused were not making any attempt to commit dacoity. Thus the evidence of Pw-3 failed to corroborate the evidence of 17 SC No.96/2020 Pw-1 in material particulars. There are contradictions in the evidence of Pws 1 and Pw-3 regarding the time of raid, the place they had parked the official vehicle etc.,
21. Pw-4 Venkataramaappa is the then constable of Kamakshipalya police station. He has also spoken in line with Pw-3. His evidence also discloses that the place where the accused were arrested is a busy place and it is a residential locality. It is always a busy place where the public will be available up to 10 p.m. Therefore it is impossible to accept the evidence of Pw-4 that in such a busy place, accused were preparing to commit dacoity by holding deadly weapons. Therefore the evidence of Pw-4 do not inspire confidence to hold that accused were making preparation to commit dacoity and they were about to commit the dacoity of by passers.
22. Pw-5 Narayana gowda was the then P.S.I. of Kamakshipalya police station. According to him on 18 SC No.96/2020 20.7.2011 at about 11.30 p.m. Pw-1 came to the station and produced Ex.P-1 mahazar with accused and weapons and submitted report as per Ex.P-2. Pursuant to Ex.P-2 he registered a case in Crime No. 487/2011 and forwarded the FIR as per Ex.P-4. He has subjected the properties through PF No. 193/2011 and recorded the voluntary statements of accused No.1 to 3 to extract information about the absconding accused. He recorded the statements of remaining witnesses and after conclusion of investigation he filed the charge-sheet. Thus the evidence of Pw-5 pertains only to investigational aspects of the case. It is to be noted that the place of occurrence is hardly about few Kms away from Kamakshipalya police station. As per the evidence of Pws,1, 3 and 4 the raid was conducted at 8 p.m. and mahazar was conducted in between 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. There is a gap of around 1 hour between the mahazar and filing of Ex.P-2 report. It is a admitted fact that 19 SC No.96/2020 Kamakshipalya police station is situated hardly within few Kms from the alleged place of occurrence and the raiding party could have returned to the station within 10-15 minutes. However there is a delay of 1 hour in lodging the report which is not explained by the prosecution. Therefore this creates a doubt in the mind of court about the varacity of the case of prosecution. As noted above there are many contradictions in the evidence of Pw-1, Pw-3 and Pw-4 and the only independent witness has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Therefore the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients of offences punishable under Secs, 399 and 402 of IPC from the mouth of aforesaid witnesses. Thus prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused No. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.Consequently accused No.2 is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus for reasons and discussions made above, I answer the points No.1 and 2 in the 'Negative'. 20 SC No.96/2020
23. Point No.3:- In view of my answer to Points No. 1 and 2 in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 Madhu S/o. Late Srinivasa is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC.
The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
The original file in S.C.No. 1264/2013 along with material objects 1 to 7 shall be retained till the disposal of remaining split up cases.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of December, 2021) (Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.21 SC No.96/2020
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution side:
P.W.1 Ramachandraiah. P.W.2 Gangadharamurthy. P.W.3 V.Chandranna. P.W.4 M.Venkataramanappa. P.W.5 K.Narayanagowda.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.1(b) Signature Ex.P.1(c) Signature Ex.P.1(d) Signature Ex.P.2 Complaint. Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.2(b) Signature Ex.P.3 Statement Ex.P.4 FIR Ex.P.4(a) Signature
List of material objects marked for the prosecution side:
MO.1 to 3 Iron rods MO.4 to 7 Clubs.
List of witnesses examined for the defence side:22 SC No.96/2020
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defence side:
Nil List of material objects marked for defence side:
Nil LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.23 SC No.96/2020
Judgment is pronounced to-day in the open court, vide separate Judgement.
O RDE R
Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.,
Accused No.2 Madhu S/o. Late Srinivasa is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 399 and 402 of IPC.24 SC No.96/2020
The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
The original file in S.C.No. 1264/2013 along with material objects 1 to 7 shall be retained till the disposal of remaining split up cases.
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.