Bangalore District Court
(Represented By The Learned App) vs He Has Recorded The Statement And on 5 April, 2021
1 CC 30311 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF XLI (41ST) ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF APRIL 2021
PRESENT
SRI S.S.BHARATH M.A. LL.M.,
ST
XLI (41 ) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU
CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 30311 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. STATE represented by
Bengaluru City Railway Police. ....COMPLAINANT
(Represented by the learned APP)
AND
1. N.Pavan Kumar,
S/o G.Narayana Swamy,
Aged 28 years,
R/at 63, Pura village,
Vijaypura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru City.
....ACCUSED
(Represented by Sri.G.M.Jagadish Advocate)
2 CC 30311 of 2018
THE BENGALURU CITY RAILWAY POLICE HAVE
CHARGE SHEETED THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 507 of IPC.
AFTER COMPLETION OF ADJUDICATION, THIS CASE
COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING...
Offences alleged u/s : 507 of IPC
Charge sheet filed on : 01012014
Trial commenced on : 21112019
Trial completed on : 04032020
Judgment date : 05042021
Total duration : DaysMonths Years
04 03 07
JUDGMENT
1. Case of the prosecution is as under; It is alleged that on 28.12.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused used his mobile phone number 963278355 particularly and called the City Control room and the said call came to be received by PW2. He informed her that by 29/12/2013, by 10.00 a.m., a bomb will be put to City Railway Station, Bengaluru and immediately he disconnected the call. PW2 informed the same to PW3 and PW3 informed the same news to PW1 and subsequently CW6 to 8 3 CC 30311 of 2018 ascertained the whereabouts of accusd and they enquired him and in turn he informed them in the course of an enquiry that only to put the public and the police to a fear, he did call the Bengaluru Police Control Room and informed the above aspects.
2. This court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 507 of IPC. As per the directions of the court, CC.No.30311 of 2018 came to be registered. In compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C, the copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers came to be supplied to the accused.
3. The court, after being satisfied as to existence of materials against the accused to proceed further in this matter, framed the charge, read over the same to the accused in Kannada language in which they claim to be conversant with. But he did not plead guilty and he claimed then, to be tried. Therefore, this court issued summons to the witnesses.
4 CC 30311 of 2018
4. Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 6 and also upon Ex.P1 to 6 and on Mo.1 and 2 as well. As could be seen from the order sheet, CW6 and 8 have been given up by the learned Senior APP. CW3 came to be dropped, as the prosecution failed to secure him.
5. After the evidence of prosecution, this court has recorded the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances came to be explained to him in Kannada language in which he claims to be conversant with. Accused denied those incriminating aspects and did not choose to adduce evidence. Hence the matter came to be posted for arguments.
6. Heard the learned Sr.APP.
7. Heard the learned counsel for accused. 5 CC 30311 of 2018
8. Following points arise for determination;
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 28/12/2013 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused used his mobile phone number aforementioned and called the police control room aforesaid and informed that by 29/12/2013 by 10.00 a.m., a bomb in Bengaluru City Railway station will b put and immediately had cut the phone call and the police, in the course of investigation, have ascertained the tower location of the mobile phone aforementioned and accordingly they arrested the accused and the investigation has revealed the participation of accused in the aforementioned crime and the accused has committed the offence called criminal intimidation by way of an anonymous communication and he did hide his identity and therefore he is guilty of an offence punishable under section 507 of IPC ?
2) what order ?
9. Above points are answered as under; Points' no.01 : In the Affirmative Point no.02 As per final orders for the following reasons...;
6 CC 30311 of 2018 REASONS The prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt alleged as above against accused. The burden to prove the aspects stated herein above against the accused, heavily lies upon the prosecution.
10. Point No.01; On a careful reading of evidence of all PW1 to PW6, it is clear that they are consistent in deposing exactly as to what has been alleged against accused in this matter. They have deposed that on 28/12/2013 , PW2 received a call at about 6.00 p.m., using the aforementioned mobile phone and informed her that a bomb will be put to City Railway Station, Bengaluru by 29/12/2013, exactly by 10.00 a.m., and she informed the said news to PW3 and same was communicated to PW1 and accordingly case came to be registered. Police have ascertained the information regarding the said, call and also regarding the tower location and they learnt that, he was a security guard at Manyatha Tech Park, 7 CC 30311 of 2018 Bengaluru. He was arrested from the premises of Manyatha Tech Park, Bengaluru and he was subjected to an investigation and enquiry. He has admitted that, to put the public and police to fear, he has passed such anonymous information baselessly.
11. PW2 is specific in deposing to the said effect and also as to inclusive of timings of said phone call etc. PW3 also has deposed as above and deposed further that he learnt about the said anonymous phone call through PW2. PW4 deposed that he had been to Manyatha Tech Park to arrest the accused together with CW6 and CW8.
12. PW5 has deposed that, after arresting the accused, he has recorded the statement and produced the accused before the court and recorded the statements of CW4 to 8 in this matter. He obtained CDR reports regarding the mobile phone and 8 CC 30311 of 2018 Sim Card pertaining to accused and they have been marked in the case as Mo.1 and 2.
13. PW6 is none other than the witness for mahazar. He deposed regarding the seizure of Mo.1 and 2 specifically.
14. I have carefully gone through the cross examination contents of all the above witnesses. Except denial simplicitor as to their evidence, no specific defence came to be put forward by the accused. Though many questions regarding the names of the persons who reportedly informed regarding accused as to his whereabouts etc., nothing much has been asked to above witnesses. Only suggestions have been put denying their evidence. The prosecution has alleged that the accused was a security guard of Manyatha Tech Park, Bengaluru. The said aspect is not in dispute in this 9 CC 30311 of 2018 case. Therefore, it is clear that there is no specific defence of accused in this matter.
15. Though many questions regarding timings of the anonymous calls have been put to the above witnesses, they have been answered satisfactorily. There has been no damage with respect to the evidence of the prosecution adduced through above witnesses.
16. Further accused has not disputed Mo.1 and 2. No specific cross examination has been made on the above witness with respect to MO.1 and 2. Though the place of his arrest has been questioned by way of suggestion, it has no strength to prove the innocence of the accused. In the cross examination of the witness for mahazar also, his evidence has been denied and apart from the denial simplicitor as to their evidence as aforesaid, no specific question by 10 CC 30311 of 2018 way of defence if any, which would discredit the evidence of the prosecution and no answer which would take away the strength of the evidence of the prosecution have been put and culled out respectively by the learned advocate for the accused.
17. But the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt alleged against the accused by adducing Ex.P6. Further Ex.P6 is very specific with respect to use of using the said phone MO. No.1 and sim card MO.No.2 on 28/12/2013 at about 6.00 clock. According to it a call has been made from IMEI NO.3541540242718402 to police control room and duration of the said call as is clear from Ex.P6 is 72 seconds in total. To overcome Ex.P6, accused has not adduced any evidence at all.
18. It is no doubt true that the burden of proof heavily lies upon the prosecution to prove the case 11 CC 30311 of 2018 beyond reasonable doubt. But by adducing evidence through above witnesses to the said effect and with the help of Ex.P6 and of the entries available in it, the prosecution has discharged its burden. In what way the Ex.P6 shall not be believed etc., should have been atleast stated by the accused.
19. In the cross examinations of above witnesses no question has been put regarding Ex.P6 and also as to entries available in it. The cross examinations conducted upon above witnesses are completely bald and in no way they damage the strength of Ex.P6.
20. Mere denying the evidence of the prosecution in chief examination does not amount to a successful cross examination. Moreover after recording of a statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused did not choose to adduce evidence. Accused did not 12 CC 30311 of 2018 dispute his title over Mo.1 and 2. He did not dispute its usage by him as on the said date and time. He did not atleast contend that it has been used by somebody else or otherwise. Therefore, the usage of the mobileMO.1 and its sim MO.No.2 by the accused as on the alleged date and time in the alleged place in the alleged way, cannot be doubted and the evidence of the prosecution does inspire the confidence of the court and this court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution and particularly the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Seizure of Mo.1 and 2 at the instance of accused cannot be disbelieved. Recovery of those objects MO.1 and 2 from the possession of accused shall be believed, in the absence of contrary. Further, in the absence of specific defence against the case, this court is having no hesitation to say that the prosecution is successful in proving the case against accused. 13 CC 30311 of 2018
21. Accused has not pleaded any aspects against the case. Though few questions have been asked regarding the design and the color of Mo.1 in the cross examination of above witnesses, those questions do not take away the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.
22. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has to stand on the strength of its case and shall not identify or indicate the weakness of the accused.
23. But the cross examinations of the above witnesses are being completely bald and as the prosecution has adduced Ex.P6 which is highly incriminating in nature, they prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the case of the accused to the aforementioned effect can be believed and this court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution is standing on its own strength only and the Ex.P6 is 14 CC 30311 of 2018 highly incriminating. Evidence of the above witnesses, specifically the evidence of PW1 to 3 are being very strong, they certainly prove the participation of accused in the commission of the aforementioned crime.
24. It is no doubt true that the confession statement submitted to the IO by the accused has no evidenciary value. But even if it is ignored and although it is present in record, still on the strength of Ex.P6 and strength of the evidence of the above witnesses, for the foregoing reasons collectively, the strength of the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted and cannot be found fault with.
25. Thus, the case against the accused can be believed.
26. For the purpose of clarity, section 507 of IPC is extracted below;
15 CC 30311 of 2018 Section 507 in The Indian Penal Code
507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.--Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.
27. It is clear on the basis of above section, that if some body would make a call in anonymous way and if that call is intimidating and if it passes a threat, certainly it amounts to an offence called " criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication." Thus as it being clear for the foregoing reasons that the accused has called PW2 to the control room number using Mo.1 and 2 by hiding his identity and has passed the intimidating fake news aforementioned and had cut the call abruptly by putting the public and the police to unnecessary fear, certainly the accused is guilty of the said offence. For 16 CC 30311 of 2018 the foregoing reasons collectively aforementioned point is hereby answered in the Affirmative.
28. Accused is accordingly held guilty for the offence punishable under section 507 of IPC.
29. Taking into consideration Section 18 of Probation of offenders Act, it is clear that as the offence contemplated in section 507 of IPC being not saved from application of the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act, considering the status of the accused, as he has no previous antecedents, this court is of the opinion to invoke provisions of P.O. Act, 1958, and is not inclined to sentence the accused.
30. Although offence contemplated in Section 507 of IPC is being punishable upto 2 years, as the position of law is clear in terms of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment delivered in a case between Lakhvir Singh etc V/s State of 17 CC 30311 of 2018 Punjab and Another, as to the application of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, there is no impediment for this court to invoke the provisions of P.O. Act inspite of punishment is being prescribed to the said extent. For the purpose of clarity the ratio laid down in the above judgment is extracted below;
" In the above Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that, the application of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is permissible, when it comes to the offence contemplated in IPC for which the mandatory minimum sentences have been prescribed. In the case on hand, as per section 354(b) of IPC the punishment prescribed is as follows; " shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 3 years and which may extend to 7 years and fine". Therefore, this court relies upon the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Because the ratio laid down in the above case is to the effect that "benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is not excluded by mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for IPC offence". I have carefully gone through entire judgment aforementioned. In the in above judgment, paragraph No.13, Hon'ble supreme court has clearly held that the conclusion is that the benefits of provisions present in the said act are not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentences under IPC offence.
18 CC 30311 of 2018 Section 18 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Saving of operation of certain enactments.--Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897), or subsection (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 2 of 1947), [***] or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or Borstal Schools.
31. Upon considering the above judgment and section 18 of P.O. Act, although a serious offence of putting police and the public to a fear by way of anonymous communication has been committed by accused, still as it being not the case of the prosecution that the accused is a habitual offender or is having criminal antecedents etc, this court is of the opinion to invoke section 3 and 5 of P.O. Act.
Section 3 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.--When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under 19 CC 30311 of 2018 section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4.
Section 5 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.--(1) The court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay--(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and (b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.(2) The amount ordered to be paid under subsection (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with 20 CC 30311 of 2018 the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub section (1) in awarding damages.
32. Thus, the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under section 507 of IPC for the foregoing reasons and is not sentenced and the conclusion of this court in this case is as under;
CONCLUSION Invoking section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 accused is hereby admonished and released after due admonition only for the offence punishable under section 507 of IPC.
Office shall furnish a copy of the above judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused, if any, will be in force till completion of appeal period, thereafter, they shall stand cancelled. 21 CC 30311 of 2018 In so far as the properties mentioned in PF No.86/2013 in S.I.No.1 ( Mo.1 and 2) are concerned, they are hereby directed to be confiscated to the state.
In so far as the properties mentioned in PF No.86/2013 (P.R.No.3/2020) in S.I.No.2 and 3 are concerned, they are hereby directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
This court hereby invokes section 05 of P.O. Act as well and directs the accused to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/ to the state forthwith, as the state has incurred expenses towards investigation of the matter and towards conducting this case in the court.
Therefore, within 10 days from today the accused shall deposit Rs.10,000/ to state, as a cost and shall submit the receipt of the same to the 22 CC 30311 of 2018 court. Office to receive the same, in the event of submission of the same.
In view of the above orders victim compensation scheme is not invoked separately (357A of Cr.P.C.,).
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court today, that is on 05042021) S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU 23 CC 30311 of 2018 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW.1 : H.Rudrappa PW.2 : Swetha PW.3 : B.Nallaraju PW.4 : K.Kadappa PW.5 : S.Jayaramaiah, PW.6 : Shivu List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.2 : Mobile Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.3 : Sim card Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.4 : FIR Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.5 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P.6 : CDR Details Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW5 List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused : NIL 24 CC 30311 of 2018 List of documents marked on behalf of the accused : NIL List of Materials marked on behalf of prosecution : MO1 : Mobile MO2 : Sim Card S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU;