Bangalore District Court
State By Channamanakere vs Girisha @ Giri @ Kunigal on 3 August, 2017
THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
(CCH-60)
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2017
PRESENT
*******
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.1184/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by Channamanakere
Acchukattu
Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.
V/s.
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 SC.No.1184/2015
2. Govinda @ Govindaraju,
S/o Kempegowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Chikkakallya Village,
Thippasandra Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
3. Srinivasa @ Vasu,
S/o Guligowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.19/B,
Pipeline, Weavers Colony,
Srinagar,
Bangalore.
4. Krishna @ K.K.
(Spilit-up)
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 : 26.01.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 26.01.2014
of Offence
3 SC.No.1184/2015
3. Status of the accused : Accused Nos.1 to 3
are in J.C. and
accused No. 5 is on bail
4. Name of the : Sri.Hemanth Kumar
complainant
5. Date of :
Commencement of 21.03.2017
evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
19.07.2017
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections
392, 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, Channammanakere Acchukattu P.S., Bengaluru City against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 411 and 413 of IPC.
4 SC.No.1184/2015
2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2014 at about 8.35 p.m. CW.1/Hemantha Kumar and CW.5/A. Venkatesh were standing in front of Krishna International College, ITI Layout, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru. At that time totally four persons came on two bikes and attacked on CW.1 and 5. Those four persons have shown long to CW.1 and 5 and given life threat. Thereafter, CW.5 ran away and from the possession of CW.1 those four persons snatched three golden finger rings weighing 30 grams worth of Rs.30,000/-. It is further alleged that after committing robbery on CW.1 again those four persons attacked CW.2/Gurumurthy, assaulted him and snatched golden chain and golden finger ring from Gurumurthy, totally weighing 31 grams worth of Rs.80,000/- and ran away. Thereafter, the matter was informed to C.K. Acchukattu Police. Based on information given by CW.1 the Police registered the case in crime No.15/2014 for the offence 5 SC.No.1184/2015 under Section 392 against unknown persons on 26.01.2014 at 9.15 p.m. and launched the investigation.
3. It has been contended by 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 Arms Act, 1969 and some accused were arrested. The Investigating Officer CW.33/Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana who was the Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura P.S. found that accused Nos.1 to 4 herein were involved in Crime No.171/14. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city formed team headed by CW.33 to nab the accused Nos.1 to 4 and other accused in the above said crime. Accordingly, the CW.33 and his team members went to Hindupura, Andhrapradesh wherein the accused Nos.1 to 4 stayed in the house of Krupakara Reddy and conducted raid in that house on 18.05.2014. The CW.33 arrested 6 SC.No.1184/2015 accused Nos.2 and 3 in that house on 18.05.2014 and when he was taking the accused to Bengaluru city and within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli, the accused No.2/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. Thereafter, the accused No.1 was arrested on 02.06.2014, and accused No.5 was arrested on 05.07.2014 in Crime No.171/14. The accused no.1 given his voluntary statement on 03.06.2014, accused No.2/Govind and accused No.3/Srinivas given their voluntary statement on 18.05.2014. Even the accused no.5 given his voluntary statement on before CW.33. Based on such voluntary statements, the CW.33 taken the accused Nos.1 and 5 to Gurupriya Jewellery and he has recovered golden ornaments of CW.1 and 2 from CW.13 by drawing Panchanama on 05.06.2014. Based on such recovery the prosecution has contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 have 7 SC.No.1184/2015 committed robbery, snatched the golden ornaments of CW.1 and 2 and thereafter those ornaments were sold to accused no.5 and the accused no.5 sold golden ornaments in Gurupriya Jewellery. It has been contended that accused no.5 was habitually receiving the stolen properties from accused Nos.1 to 4. On these allegations the charge sheet came to be filed.
4. The charge sheet was registered in C.C.No.9899/15 on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru and the learned magistrate secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 by issuing body warrant. The accused no.4 and 5 were 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 413 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. After committal the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 engaged their advocates. The accused no.4 absconded and therefore, case against him came to be split-up. The accused No.5 is on bail and 8 SC.No.1184/2015 the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 has been secured by issuing body warrant and till today the accused Nos.1 to 3 are in J.C. of other cases.
5. After hearing both sides charge has been framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 392 of IPC. The charge has been framed against the accused No.5 for the offence under Sections 411 and 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 seven witnesses as PW.s 1 to 7 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.16. 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.
9 SC.No.1184/2015
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 26.01.2014 at about 8.25 P.M. in front of Krishna International College, ITI Layout, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 committed robbery of golden ornaments from the possession of CW.1-Hemanth Kumar and CW.2/Gurumurthy by showing deadly weapon and thereby committed the offence under Section 392 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 3 along with accused No.4 sold the above said golden ornaments to the accused No.5 and the 10 SC.No.1184/2015 accused No.5 dishonestly received the golden ornaments 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 properties from accused Nos.1 to 3 along with accused No.4 knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties and 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/Hemantha Kumar is the victim, P.W.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses to the 11 SC.No.1184/2015 scene of offence Panchanama. P.W.2 and 7 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.5 is the owner of Gurupriya Jewellers and P.W.6 is Sri K.P. Sathyanarayana, who conducted seizure Panchanama and registered Crime No.171/2014 of Byatarayanapura P.S.
11. P.W.1 has stated that on 26.01.2014 he went to Basavanagudi VIII Main in order to meet his friend Venkatesh. Both of them were standing near Sri Krishna College in ITI Layout, at about 8.15 to 8.30 P.M. At that time, a person wearing monkey cap came near him and thereafter two persons came in Pulsar bike. Thereafter, another person came and asked him the time. Thereafter, those three persons shown macchhu to him and asked him to give his belongings. By this time Venkatesh ran away and those three persons snatched three golden rings of P.W.1. He has stated that he sustained simple injury to his left hand and his watch was damaged. He has also stated that those two persons were having full helmet. 12 SC.No.1184/2015 The P.W.1 has deposed that he could not identify the culprits who have committed robbery. He deposed that one of the public who gathered taken him to the Police station and he filed his first information at Ex.P.1. He states that Police came to the spot and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.2.
12. The P.W.1 has deposed that after two months from the date of incident C.K. Acchukattu Police called him to the Police station and shown one accused who is not the accused No1 to 3 or 5 of the present case. He states that Byatarayanapura P.S. called him to the station and shown his stolen three golden rings. According to him he has obtained the interim custody of golden rings by approaching the court. This witness denied the identification of accused Nos.1 to 3 and even the accused No.4/Krishna. He has denied his additional statements.
13. The accused Nos.1 to 3 denied the robbery of three golden rings during the cross-examination of P.W.1 13 SC.No.1184/2015 and then also the witness has categorically stated that his three rings were stolen by four persons who were wearing monkey cap and full helmet. The P.W.1 not deposed the robbery of golden chain and ring of CW.2/Gurumurthy which has been shown in Ex.P.1. Even in the cross- examination conducted by the prosecution the robbery of golden chain and ring of Gurumurthy has not been disclosed. There is a material omission in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding part of information at Ex.P.1 in respect of robbery of golden chain and ring of Gurumurthy. However, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that totally three persons attacked on P.W.1 in the night and stolen three golden rings which were subsequently traced out.
14. The P.W.2 has stated that on 26.01.2014 he was the SHO of C.K. Acchukattu P.S. and at 9.15 P.M. the P.W.1 submitted first information at Ex.P.1 which has been registered in Crime No.15/2014 through FIR produced at Ex.P.6. This fact has also been spoken by 14 SC.No.1184/2015 P.W.1. The incident took place at about 8.30 P.M. and the information has been given to the Police at 9.15 P.M. on 26.01.2014. Therefore, the matter has been reported to the Police immediately after the crime and hence, creation of case by the P.W.1 has to be overruled.
15. The P.W.2 has stated that after registration of the crime he went to the spot and drawn Panchanama at Ex.P.2 in presence of P.W.3 and 4. The P.W.1 has supported this statement. The P.W.3 and 4 are the friends of P.W.1 and they have stated that their signatures have been obtained by the Police on Ex.P.2. According to them they have put their signature in the Panchanama when they were in Police station and not on the spot. They have spoken about loss of golden rings by P.W.1. The accused denied the evidence of P.W.2 in respect of Ex.P.2. The accused have not cross-examined P.W.3 and
4. The signature of P.W.3 and 4 on Ex.P.2 is not disputed. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 show that Ex.P.2 was drawn 15 SC.No.1184/2015 on the spot and the evidence of P.W.3 and 4 show that their signature was obtained in the Panchanama in the Police station. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 clearly indicate that the P.W.3 and 4 were also present on the spot at the time of drawing Panchanama. Such evidence is sufficient to prove the scene of offence shown in Ex.P.2. Apart from that it is not the case of the defence that no offence was committed on the spot one shown in Ex.P.2. Thus, I hold that through evidence of P.W.1 to 4 the prosecution has proved the Panchanama at Ex.P.2.
16. In Ex.P.1 there is allegation that after committing the robbery on P.W.1 the culprits committed robbery on Gurumurthy. CW.2/Gurumurthy has not been examined. Even CW.5/Venkatesh who was present with P.W.1 has not been examined. Those two witnesses are material witnesses to prove the robbery on Gurumurthy. The P.W.1 has not spoken about snatching of golden ornaments from Gurumurthy. Therefore, 16 SC.No.1184/2015 absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that four unknown persons committed the offence of robbery by snatching the golden chain and golden rings of Gurumurthy on 26.01.2014 at about 8.35 P.M.
17. The evidence of P.W.1 to 4 is sufficient to hold that four unknown persons committed robbery on P.W.1 and snatched his three golden rings. Such fact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
18. According to the prosecution the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the robbery and whether such allegation has been proved is the matter for consideration. To prove such allegation the prosecution relied upon the voluntary statement said to be given by accused Nos.1 to 5 before P.W.6/K.P. Sathyanarayana and recovery of three golden rings of P.W.1/Hemantha Kumar and CW.2/Gurumurthy under the Panchanama 05.06.2014 from Gurupriya Jewellers i.e. P.W.5/Pramod. Further, the 17 SC.No.1184/2015 prosecution has relied upon the voluntary statement said to be given by accused Nos.1 to 4 and seizure of golden ornaments under Panchanama dated 05.06.2014 which was said to be conducted in Gurupriya Jewellers. If the prosecution is able to prove these voluntary statements and seizure Panchanamas, then only the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Whether the prosecution has proved all these allegations has to be looked into.
19. The P.W.6/K.P. Sathyanarayana has stated that on 16.04.2014 he received information about assembly of more than five people within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura P.S. at about 9.00 P.M. who were preparing to commit dacoity therefore he has conducted raid and able to arrest many culprits. He has registered the crime No.171/2014 in Byatarayanapura P.S. He has also stated that the Joint Police Commissioner, Bengaluru city formed team consisting of himself, Sri Balegowda, Sri 18 SC.No.1184/2015 T. Rangappa, Sri S.B. Sakri, Prashanth Babu who are the Police Inspectors of various Police stations of Bengaluru city on 17.05.2014 to nab the culprits in Crime No.171/2014. According to him his team went to Hindupura in Andhrapradesh early in the morning of 18.05.2014 and conducted raid on the rented house of accused Nos.1 to 4 which was belonging to Krupa Reddy. He has stated that material objects consisting of deadly weapons were seized by P.W.6 in the house of Krupa Reddy by drawing the Panchanama at Ex.P.11. The first information and the FIR in Crime No.171/2014 are at Ex.P.9 and P.10 . The registration of Crime No.171/2014, formation of team headed by P.W.6 and raid conducted in the house of Krupa Reddy in Hindupura is not much relevant to the present case including the recovery under the Panchanama at Ex.P.11.
20. The P.W.6 has stated that his team able to arrest the accused No.2 and 3 on 18.05.2014. This arrest 19 SC.No.1184/2015 has not been denied by the accused. Even if it is denied, there is ample evidence on record to show that P.W.6 has arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 on 18.05.2014. Thus, I hold that arrest of both accused proved through the evidence of P.W.6.
21. The P.W.6 has stated that on 02.06.2014 he has obtained the custody of accused No.1/Giri who was in judicial custody of Andhrapradesh Court. The P.W.6 has deposed that on 03.06.2014 the accused No.1 has given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.12. He stated that on 04.06.2014 he arrested the accused No.5/Ramdas and even Ramdas has given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.13. The arrest of these two accused is also not seriously disputed and there is ample evidence to show such arrest. Therefore, I hold that as on 03.06.2014 and 04.06.2014 the accused No.1 and 5 were in the custody of P.W.6.
20 SC.No.1184/2015
22. The P.W.6 has identified the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 5 at Ex.P.12 and 13 including the signatures of the accused. He has deposed about the voluntary statement given by accused No.3/Srinivas on 18.05.2014 and voluntary statement of accused No.2/Govind on 05.07.2014 produced at Ex.P.15 and P.16. The accused have denied these statements. The P.W.6 was investigating the matter in Crime No.171/2014. When he has deposed about the voluntary statement relating to discovery, his statement requires to be believed which is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. No more proof is required to establish the discovery statement made by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 shown in Ex.P.12, 13, 15 and P.16.
23. The P.W.6 has stated that on the basis of discovery statement referred above he went to Gurupriya jewellery shop situated at Malleswaram along with accused No.1 and 5 and from that shop he seized the 21 SC.No.1184/2015 golden ornaments of P.W.1 and CW.2 of the present case including many other articles shown in Panchanama at Ex.P.14. This Panchanama is seriously disputed by the accused. Therefore, prosecution is required to prove the Panchanama in accordance with law.
24. The Panchanama was drawn by P.W.6 in presence of GNJ Rudra Prasad and Pramod Kumar B.P. In the Panchanama it has been shown that Pramod who has been examined as P.W.5 handed over the golden ornaments shown in Ex.P.14. But the P.W.5 has categorically denied possessing of golden ornaments shown in Panchanama including seizure of those ornaments by P.W.6 in Gurupriya Jewellery shop. The prosecution not examined GNJ Rudraprasad and Pramod Kumar B.P. who are the panch witnesses. Thus, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.6 about recovery of various ornaments shown in Ex.P.14. When the panch witnesses and the P.W.5 have not supported the seizure, 22 SC.No.1184/2015 the evidence of P.W.6 alone is not sufficient to prove the seizure of ornaments shown in Ex.P.14. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the seizure Panchanama.
25. The P.W.7 has stated that he secured the accused No.1 to 3 into his custody in Crime No.63/2014 of C.K. Acchukattu Police Station and at that time he shown those accused to the witnesses of the present case. He has also stated that on 13.01.2015 he secured the accused No.4 and shown him to the witnesses. To prove this statement the evidence of witnesses who have identified the accused Nos.1 to 4 is relevant and essential. The P.W.1 has denied such statement and other witnesses have not been examined. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not sufficient to prove the involvement of accused No.1 to 3 in the alleged crime.
26. When the prosecution has not proved the recovery of any of the stolen properties belonging to 23 SC.No.1184/2015 P.W.1 and CW.2 on the basis of the discovery statement made by the accused, only the discovery statements not sufficient to believe that the accused No.1 to 4 have committed robbery and snatched the golden ornaments from P.W.1 and CW.2 on 21.06.2014. Therefore, I hold that offence of robbery has not been proved against the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt by answering this point in the negative.
27. POINT NO.2 & 3 : There is an allegation against the accused No.5 that he received the golden ornaments of P.W.1 and CW.2 from the accused Nos.1 to 4 knowing that the golden ornaments were stolen property. 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 P.W.1 and CW.2 and snatched the 24 SC.No.1184/2015 golden ornaments. It is also concluded that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 have sold the golden ornaments to accused No.5 and at the instance of accused No.5 the ornaments have been recovered. The P.W.7 has stated that the accused No.5 was receiving the stolen properties. Such statement is not supported with any 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 Sections 411 and 413 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative. And pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 and 413 of IPC.25 SC.No.1184/2015
The accused Nos.1 to 3 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 stand cancelled.
No order regarding disposal of property is passed as case against accused No.4/Krishna is pending.
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 2nd day of August 2017).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for prosecution:
PW 1 Hemanth Kumar C.S.
PW.2 H.R. Narayan
P.W.3 Ramesh
P.W.4 Rajesh
P.W.5 Pramod
P.W.6 K.P. Sathyanarayana
26 SC.No.1184/2015
P.W.7 B.K. Shekhar
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint by P.W.1 Ex.P.1(a) & (b) Signatures of P.W.1, 2 Ex.P.2 Incidental mahazar Ex.P.2(a)&(b) Signatures of P.W.1, 2, 3 and
(c) & (d) 4 Ex.P.3 Photograph Ex.P.5 Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.6 FIR Ex.P.7 Mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of witness Ex.P.8 Statement of Pramod Ex.P.9 Copy of complaint Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.10 P.A.Holder Ex.P.10(1) Signature Ex.P.11 Mahazar Ex.P.11(a) Signature of witness Ex.P.12 Voluntary Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.12(a)-(c) Signatures Ex.P.13 Voluntary statement of accused No.5 Ex.P.13(a)-(c) Signature of witness and accused Ex.P.14 Mahazar Ex.P.15 Voluntary statement of (Marked twice) accused No.3 and photograph Ex.P.16 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.16(a)-(c) Signature of witness and accused No.2 27 SC.No.1184/2015 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.28 SC.No.1184/2015 Accused Nos.1 to 3
produced through V.C. Accused No.5 present.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate detailed judgment) with the following operative portion:
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and accused No.5 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 411 and 413 of IPC.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 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 stand cancelled.
29 SC.No.1184/2015
No order regarding disposal of property is passed as case against accused No.4/Krishna is pending.
Issue intimation to jail authority accordingly.
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.