Bangalore District Court
Station vs Persons Have Committed The Offence ... on 2 June, 2023
1 C.C.No.53326/2010
Digitally signed by
KABC030541022010 VEEDAMOORTHY VEEDAMOORTHY B
BS S SADANANDABHAT
SADANANDABHAT BOLLAJE
BOLLAJE Date: 2022.02.24
22:21:25 +0530
Presented on : 29-12-2010
Registered on : 29-12-2010
Decided on : 02-06-2023
Duration : 12 years, 5 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 2nd day of June 2023
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.53326/2010 Date of commission of the
2. 19.06.2010 offence (As per F.I.R.) Subramanyapura Police
3. Name of the complainant Station, Bengaluru City
4. Name of the accused 1. Vikas,
2. Raghu @ Todla, S/o Late Mahadeva, Aged about 19 years, R/at Gunduthopu, Near Raghavendra Dar, Ittamadu, Bengaluru.
3. Prashanth, 2 C.C.No.53326/2010
4. Prashanth @ Hundred.
(Case against accused No.1, 3 and 4 - Split up) The offences complained Section 384 of the Indian
5.
of Penal Code 6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty 7. Final order Accused No.2 is acquitted 8. Date of order 02.06.2023
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the above named accused persons alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 19.06.2010 at 8.45 p.m., the accused persons stopped CW1 who was going in his TVS motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-H-4233 near beneath NICE Road bridge, Srinivasa Colony, Bengaluru within the territorial limits of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City; snatched his helmate; threatened that they will beat him with it and snatched cash of Rs.30,000/- and Nokia mobile phone from him. Thereby, the 3 C.C.No.53326/2010 accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.328/2010 at Subramanyapura Police Station. During investigation, on 26.06.2010, accused No.1 to 3 were arrested and produced before the Court. On 29.06.2010, they were enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offence, the process was issued to the accused persons. Accused No.2 has appeared before this Court. Since, the presence of accused No.1, 3 and 4 could not be secured, the case against them was ordered to split up and split up Criminal Case was registered against them 23981/2015. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to accused No.2 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, 4 C.C.No.53326/2010 since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.2 has committed offence triable by this Court, charge for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charge framed against accused No.2, the prosecution has not produced any evidences either oral or documentary. Since, there were no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution against accused No.2, the examination of accused No.2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for accused No.2. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offence charged against accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 5 C.C.No.53326/2010 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charge leveled against accused No.2, in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, 9 witnesses are cited. Among them, CW1 Perumal is the First Informant, Mahazar witness and victim; CW2 Nagaraja is the Seizer Mahazar witness; CW3 Shivanna and Dinesh are the spot Mahazar witnesses; CW5 Suresh, CW6 Aravinda, CW7 Vishwanatha and CW8 Girish are the witnesses who have traced accused No.1 to 3 and CW9 B.Rajaiah is the Investigation Officers of this case.
8. On perusal of the records, it appears that the summons issued to CW1 to appear before the Court and to give his evidences was served on him twice. But, he did not appeared. 6 C.C.No.53326/2010 The addresses of CW2 to CW4 could not be traced to the process serving agency. CW5 to CW9 have not appeared and gave their evidences inspite of they have informed by the process serving agency. The process serving agency, instead of securing the presence of the witnesses on issuance of warrants, endorsed that CW1 to CW4 could not be secured and informed CW5 to CW9. But, CW5 to CW9 have not appeared and gave their evidences before the Court. The proclamations were also issued thrice to secure the presence of CW1 to CW9. The process serving agency was not published the said proclamations. Inspite of repeated issuance of processes, the presence of CW1 to CW9 could not be secured for long time. Moreover, CW5 to CW9 are the police witnesses whose presence could be secured by the prosecution easily through the process serving agency. But, the prosecution has not did so. When the prosecution has not interest to secure the presence of its witnesses including the police witnesses inspite of repeated issuance of processes including coercive steps, there are no reasons to issuance of further processes to the prosecution witnesses. For these 7 C.C.No.53326/2010 reasons, the prosecution witnesses are dropped. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
9. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused No.2 is not found guilty for the aforesaid offence charged against him. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,
accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will 8 C.C.No.53326/2010 be in force till appeal period and thereafter, they shall be canceled.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 02.06.2023) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.