Bangalore District Court
State By Jalahalli vs Persons Dropped The Above Purse In Post on 2 January, 2023
KABC030541362018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of January 2023
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.20002/2018
Date of Offence : 06.02.2017
Name of complainant : State by Jalahalli
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : 1. Sathyanarayana Prasad
@ Sathya @ Prasad @ Satish
2. Shivarama @ Kutti
S/o Cheluvaiah,
aged 37 years,
R/o No.8, 2nd cross,
Vaddarapalya,
Horamavu main road,
Bengaluru 43.
3. Vinod R. @ Chandra,
2 C.C.No.20002/2018
S/o Ramappa,
aged 23 years,
R/o Peramachanahalli,
village, Chinnasandra
Post, Kaiwara Hobli,
Chintamani taluk,
Chickballapur District.
(By Shri Nagendra Prasad B.M.,
Advocate)
(Case against A.1 is split up)
Offences complained off: U/s.379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC,
66(C) of I.T. Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.2 & 3 are
acquitted
Date of Order : 02-01-2023
JUDGMENT
Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Section 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s 66(C) of Information Technology Act.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:-
On 06-02-2017 at about 1.00 p.m. when C.W.1 was returning from BEL Hospital after treatment 3 C.C.No.20002/2018 and when he was boarding a bus at Kengeri Sub Division bus stop, some passengers pushed him from behind. Thereafter when he reached BEL circle and checked his pant, he found that there was pick pocketing of his purse, which consisted cash of Rs.18,000/-, ATM cards and other documents. Thereafter, concerned accused persons purchased gold worth Rs.1,20,000/- from Malbar Gold by using debit card of C.W.1 by an act of impersonation as if they are owner of said debit card. Thereafter, accused persons dropped the above purse in post box of Kengeri Sub Division. Thereafter on next day C.W.1 lodged first information before Jalahalli Police Station, which was registered by them in their Cr.No.13/2017 and FIR is issued. Subsequently on 12-07-2017 C.W.9 I.O. deputed C.Ws.5 to 7 police officials for search of accused persons of this case and accordingly said official produced accused No.1 to 3 on same day. I.O. recovered gold bracelet 4 C.C.No.20002/2018 weighing 46 grams, cash of Rs.12,100/- and Rs.8,200/- from the custody of accused persons under mahazar. After recording statements of material witnesses and after completion of investigation I.O. filed charge sheet against accused for above offences.
3. Accused No.1 to 3 were arrested during crime stage and they are enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge sheet against accused, cognizance of alleged offences are taken and summons is issued to accused. Accused No.2 and 3 have appeared before court in pursuant to coercive steps. However, accused No.1 could not be secured and case against him is split up as per order dated 28-02-2020. Copy of charge sheet is furnished to accused No.2 and 3 u/s 207 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed against them. Accused No.2 and 3 have not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and they have claimed to be tried.
5 C.C.No.20002/2018
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked 16 documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded and accused No.2 and 3 have denied incriminating evidence against them. Accused have not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegations, the following points arose for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused no.2 and 3 have committed offence punishable under section 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused no.2 and 3 have committed offence punishable under section 66(C) of Information Technology Act?
3. What order ?
6. Heard arguments. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6 C.C.No.20002/2018
7. The following are findings to above points. Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 and 2 :These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.
9. C.W.4/P.W.1 Naveen P.R. S/o Ramesh has testified in his evidence that from 7 years he is working as Cashier in Malabar Gold and Diamonds, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. On 06.02.2017 three persons had come to his shop and purchase gold bracelet, they paid money by swiping a debit card of Karnataka Bank, paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cash and paid Rs.75,000/- by way of debit card. The card was swiped in their swiping machine. He has further testified that after 2-3 days as per complaint lodged by card holder in Jalahalli, police had come to their shop for enquiry. After enquiry they handed over 7 C.C.No.20002/2018 invoice and slip of swiping machine in respect of aforesaid transaction. He has identified invoice and cash slip handed over to police as per Exs.P1 and P2. However, he has specifically stated that he does not remember name of said customers and he cannot identify them. Hence evidence of this witness does not help prosecution to prove guilt of accused.
10. C.W.5/P.W.2 K.Srinivasa Murthy S/o Krishnaiah, who is the then H.C. of Jalahalli PS and official who apprehended accused No.1 to 3 has testified in his evidence that on 12.07.2017 himself, C.Ws.6 and 7 were deputed for search of accused in Cr.No.13/17 of Jalahalli police station i.e., this case by C.W.9 I.O. When they came near BEL Circle, they found that 3 persons i.e., accused were moving suspiciously at about 4.00 PM. On enquiry they revealed their names as Vinod, Shivaram and Sathyanarayan Prasad and they did not give proper 8 C.C.No.20002/2018 answers to their questions. P.W.2 has further testified that they immediately produced them before C.W.9 and accused No.1 to 3 themselves are said persons. He has identified accused No.2 and 3 to be two of them and he has stated that he can identify another accused if shown to him. He has identified true copy of his report as per Ex.P3 and his signature on said document as per Ex.P3(a). In cross-examination he has admitted that he has not furnished any documents to show his deputation to above work. It is suggested to him that though he has not apprehended accused persons and produce them before I.O., he is deposing falsely.
11. C.W.2/P.W.3 Manjunath S/o Somaraju, who is a seizure mahazar witness of this case has identified seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 and his signature as per Ex.P4(a). He has stated that he had signed it at Jalahalli police station at about 4 - 5 years back with 9 C.C.No.20002/2018 regard to pick pocketing purse of his owner. At that time police has showed him a gold bracelet and chain. However, he has turned hostile by stating that police have not shown him any persons. Though this witness is treated as hostile witness and cross-examined at length by learned Sr.APP., he has denied with regard to seizure of cash as per above mahazar and identifying accused No.1 to 3 as culprits of said theft during mahazar. He has also denied that seized cash belonged to C.W.1 and he has given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P5. In cross-examination by defence side it is suggested to him that police have not seized any gold articles under above mahazar as deposed by him.
12.P.W.4 Dr.Anupama W/o Panchakshari, who is other witness of Ex.P4 mahazar has identified her signature on said mahazar with regard to pick pocketing of purse of her father-in-law, she signed it 10 C.C.No.20002/2018 about 5-6 years back. She has further stated that police showed her a gold bracelet and chain and she has identified her signature on mahazar marked as Ex.P4(b). Though this witness is also treated as hostile and cross-examined at length by learned Sr.APP., she has denied with regard to seizure of cash as per above mahazar and identifying accused No.1 to 3 as culprits of said theft during mahazar. She has also denied that police seized ATM and cash belonged to C.W.1 and she had given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P6. In cross-examination by defence side it is suggested to him that police have not seized any gold articles under above mahazar as deposed by her.
13. P.W.5 Huchegowda T. S/o late H.Thimmappa has testified in his evidence that on 10.02.2017, he has taken over further investigation of the case from C.W.8. On same day he recorded further statement of C.W.1. On 12.07.2017 at 4.30 PM, C.Ws.5 to 7 have 11 C.C.No.20002/2018 produced accused No.1 to 3 before him with property in Cr.No.13/17 of their PS and CW.5 has given report in this regard. He has identified said report as per Ex.P3 and his signature on it as per Ex.P3(b). P.W.5 has further testified in his evidence that he has recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 to 3 wherein they have admitted to have committed above offence. He has identified said voluntary statements as per Exs.P7 to P9 and his signature on it as per Exs.P7(a) to P9(a) respectively. He has further testified that he has secured C.Ws.2 and 3 panchas and recovered properties produced by accused persons by conducting mahazar. He has identified true copy of mahazar as per Ex.P4 and his signature on it as per Ex.P4(c). P.W.5 has further testified in his evidence that he has seized gold bracelet of 46 gms produced by accused No.1 and cash of Rs.12,300/- produced by accused No.2 and cash of Rs.8200/- produced by accused No.3 under P.F.No.37/17. He has identified 12 C.C.No.20002/2018 true copy of said P.F. as per Ex.P10 and his signature on it as per Ex.P10(a). He has further stated that he recorded statements of C.Ws.2, 3, 6 and 7 and one more further statement of C.W.1 with regard to identification of property and accused persons. P.W.5 has further testified in his evidence that thereafter he produced accused No.1 to 3 before court and obtained account statement of C.W.1 from Syndicate Bank with regard to withdrawal of money from said bank. He has identified said statement as per Ex.P11, account statement of Karnataka Bank belonging to C.W.1 as per Ex.P12, authorization letter of Malabar Gold and Diamonds as per Ex.P13, receipts issued by Malabar Gold towards purchase of bracelet by C.W.1 as per Exs.P1 and 2. He has further stated that on 28.03.2018 he recorded statement of C.W.4, he released bracelet to C.W.1 and he has identified the said bracelet as per Ex.P14 photo. He has further testified that on 09.04.2018 as property of 13 C.C.No.20002/2018 Cr.No.25/17 were recovered in this case, he has forwarded copies of this case to said file and thereafter he has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 on 09.04.2018. He has identified accused No.2 and 3 before court. In cross-examination by defence side, entire evidence of this witness is denied in toto and it is suggested to him that though seized property is own money of accused persons and though accused have not given any voluntary statements, he has falsely implicated them in present case. It is further suggested that though there is no nexus between alleged theft and accused, false charge sheet is filed against them for statistical purpose. P.W.5 has denied above suggestions.
14. P.W.6 Lingareddy S/o Lt. Subba Reddy has testified in his evidence that from 01.10.2016 to 10.02.2017 he has served as PSI in Jalahalli PS. On 07.02.2017, while he was SHO of said Police Station 14 C.C.No.20002/2018 C.W.1 appeared and lodged First Information before him. He has registered the case in their P.S. Cr.No.13/2017 and registered FIR. He has identified first Information received be him as per Ex.P15, FIR as per Ex.P16 and his signatures on said documents as per Ex.P15(a) and Ex.P16(a). Thereafter in view of his transfer he has handed over further investigation of the case to C.W.9. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.6 has denied that he has registered false case as per request of C.W.1 and also for statistical purpose.
15. Thus on perusal of entire evidence of prosecution it shows that except hostile evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses and evidence of official witnesses, absolutely there is nothing on record to prove that accused No.2 an 3 themselves have committed an act of theft by pickpocketing the purse of informant. The above witnesses have completely turned hostile with regard to 15 C.C.No.20002/2018 identification of accused and with regard to seizure of incriminating materials from them. Moreover, it shows that accused persons are apprehended only on the basis of suspicion and though the aforesaid gold bracelet and cash are said to have been recovered from them, such recovery is not established to the satisfaction of the court in view of hostile evidence of both mahazar witnesses. Further I.O. has not secured any electronic data including CCTV footage of concerned gold shop in order to prove that accused persons themselves had been to said shop and they purchased gold articles by using ATM card of informant by an act of impersonation as per case of prosecution. Further evidence of I.O. is not corroborated with evidence of other witnesses. Hence aforesaid evidence is insufficient to hold that accused No.2 and 3 have committed alleged theft of purse of informant. Hence in view of above reasons, the evidence of prosecution witnesses has not 16 C.C.No.20002/2018 inspired the confidence of the Court with regard to alleged guilt of accused and as such it is incumbent upon this Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.2 and 3 have committed offences punishable under Sections 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Sec.66(C) of Information Technology Act. Hence, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in Negative.
16. Point No.3: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 and 2, following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Sec.66(C) of Information Technology Act.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.2 and 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same 17 C.C.No.20002/2018 shall stand canceled automatically.
The entire records of this case shall be enclosed with split up case filed against accused No.1. Further the interim custody of release articles will continue with informant till disposal of split up case against accused No.1.
(Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 2 nd day of January 2023).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Naveen P.R. P.W.2, K.Srinivasa Murthy, P.W.3, Manjunath, P.W.4, Dr.Anupama, P.W.5, Huchche Gowda T. P.W.6, Lingareddy;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Cash invoice,
Ex.P2, Cash slip,
Ex.P3, Report,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P4, Mahazar,
Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.3,
18 C.C.No.20002/2018
Ex.P4(b), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P4(c) Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P5, Statement of P.W.3,
Ex.P6, Statement of P.W.4,
Ex.P7, Voluntary statement of accused
No.1,
Ex.P8, Voluntary statement of accused
No.2,
Ex.P9, Voluntary statement of accused
No.3,
Ex.P7(a) to
Ex.P9(a) Signatures of P.W.5,
Ex.P10, True copy of P.F. No.37/2017,
Ex.P10(a) Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P11, Syndicate Bank account statement of
C.W.1,
Ex.P12, Karnataka Bank account statement
of C.W.1,
Ex.P12(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P13, Authorization letter of Malabar Gold
and Diamonds,
Ex.P14, Photo of bracelet,
Ex.P15, First information ,
Ex.P15(a), Signature of P.W.6,
Ex.P16, FIR,
Ex.P16(a), Signature of P.W.6;
List of material object :NIL
List of witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
19 C.C.No.20002/2018(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Sec.66(C) of Information Technology Act.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.2 and 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
20 C.C.No.20002/2018The entire records of this case shall be enclosed with split up case filed against accused No.1. Further the interim custody of release articles will continue with informant till disposal of split up case against accused No.1.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.