Bangalore District Court
State By High Grounds P.S vs And 2 Are Acquitted on 6 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th Day of November 2020
Present: Sri.Vignesh Kumar, LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.12824/2015
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 12824/2015
2. The date of commission 09/10/2014
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by High Grounds P.S.
4. Name of the accused 1. Datturaj Padukone @
Datturaj s/o Damodhar, aged
22 years, permanent
residence at No.117A,
Senapura Village, Ward No.1,
near Anthony Lower Primary
School, Guddenangadi,
Kundapura, Udupi.
Presently r/at c/o near
Nanjundaiah Linit Bar,
Mahaganapatinagara,
Basaveshwaranagara,
Bangalore.
2. Raghavendra s/o
A.P.Bhatta, aged 32 years,
r/at No.37, 4th main, Nagappa
Reddy Layout, Kaggadasa
pura, Bangalore - 93
2 C.C.No.12824/2015
permanent residence at near
Ganesha Krupa Sub Registrar
Office, Hanpanakatte,
Mangalore.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 384, 506 and 120B of
or proved r/w 34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused 1 and 2 are acquitted
8. Date of such order 06112020
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by Police Inspector of High Grounds PS against the accused No.1 and 2 for offences Punishable U/Sec. 384, 506 and 120B r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The first informant CW1 Anil Das is a Director of Das Promotions Home Nursing Services which is dedicated to provide Nursing Services to the hospital, old age homes. It is 3 C.C.No.12824/2015 alleged that on 30092014 at 8.00 a.m., he had received a mobile call from accused No.1 Datturaj Padukone who had introduced himself as a reporter of Udaya TV and requested CW1 to give an interview. On 07102014 accused No.1 and 2 had called CW1 to Cresent Hotel and told him that there are allegations of the offence of rape and offence of trafficking of women to foreign countries against him. It is further alleged that the accused demanded extortion money of Rs.20,00,000/ and if the said demand is not met, they would telecast programme in the TV by defaming CW1. On the same day at 7.30 p.m., at Cunningham Road, accused No.1 and 2 once again met CW1 and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not pay them Rs.20,00,000/ as demanded. On 09102014 once again the accused had called CW1 and demanded for atleast Rs.15,00,000/ and when CW1 refused to meet the said demand accused had come to the office of CW1 and recorded video of his office board and photographs. Thus, it is alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the acts of extortion with a 4 C.C.No.12824/2015 criminal conspiracy. Regarding the said incident CW1 lodged first information with the jurisdictional High Grounds police station. The concerned police after registration of FIR, drew spot mahazar and seizure mahazar, recorded the statement of the witnesses, forwarded the material documents along with sample voice clipping to the FSL. After conclusion of entire materials and conclusion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the aforesaid accused for the aforementioned offences.
3. Accused 1 and 2 were on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 384, 506 and 120B r/w 34 of IPC. The accused No.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1 to 5. The accused No.1 and 2 were questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the 5 C.C.No.12824/2015 incriminatory materials against them. They have not opted to lead their evidence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points that would arise for my determination in this case are as under:
Point No.1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 7/10/2014 at Crescent Hotel, near McDonald of Cunningham Road and again and on 0910 2014 near Contonment Railway Station within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Police Station, accused No.1 and 2 styling themselves as the reporters of Udaya TV demanded extortion money of Rs.20,00,000/ from CW1 and threatened him with dire consequences of telecasting defamatory report against him if the said extortion money is not paid and thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable U/s.384 r/w 511 of IPC?
Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place accused 6 C.C.No.12824/2015 No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to commit an offence committed criminal intimidation to CW1 and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to commit an offence committed extortion by hatching criminal conspiracy and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 120(B) of IPC?
Point No.4. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
7 C.C.No.12824/2015
REAS ONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: In order to avoid the repetition of facts point No.1 to 3 are taken together for common discussion.
9. In order to prove its case the prosecution got examined all together 4 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1 to 5 on its behalf. The first informant is examined as PW1. The police constable who had transmitted the material objects to the FSL is examined as PW2. The Investigating Officer in this case is examined as PW3. Expert from FSL department is examined as PW4. In spite of issuance of proclamation to CW1 to 9, 11 and 13 did not appear and as such they have been dropped from examination.
10. In the present case, the accused have been charge sheeted for the offence of criminal conspiracy, intimidation and extortion. It is admitted fact that the accused are not successful in obtaining extortion money from PW1. Thus, it is only an attempt to extort the money from PW1. The best 8 C.C.No.12824/2015 evidence to prove the said act of the extortion would have been the evidence of PW1 first informant. Unfortunately, for the prosecution the said witness has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. During his chief examination PW1 has refused to admit that the accused No.1 and 2 had demanded extortion money and threatened him with dire consequences. Even the recitals of Ex.P1 first information is not admitted by the witness. After treating PW1 as hostile the learned Sr.APP has cross examined him at length. However, he has refused to admit the prosecution case. In a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Due to PW1 completely turning hostile there is no cogent oral evidence to prove the alleged act of the extortion and intimidation. However, there is an expert opinion which is in support of prosecution case.
11. In order to prove the said documentary Forensic evidence the prosecution has got examined PW2 to 4. PW2 is a police constable who had taken the MO1 Pen drive and 9 C.C.No.12824/2015 MO2 sample voice CDs to the FSL for examination. PW3 is the I.O. who had visited the place of offence and drew Ex.P2 mahazar. At that time of Ex.P2 mahazar PW1 had handed over MO1 Pen drive which is allegedly containing the audio wherein the accused have demanded extortion money. Thereafter by obtaining the permission of this court as per Ex.P5 the audio containing in MO1 Pen drive that is transcripted as per Ex.P6. Thereafter, the said transcript is made to be read by accused No.1 under Ex.P7 mahazar. The said sample is transferred to CD which is at MO2. Further, the Forensic expert PW4 is examined on behalf of the prosecution who has clearly spoken with regard to her opinion report as per Ex.P9 and voice samples being similar to the speeches found in MO1 Pen drive. On the basis of the said evidence of PW2 to 4 it can be seen that the prosecution on the basis of the documentary evidence is able to prove the voice in MO1 Pen drive as belonging to accused No.1. 10 C.C.No.12824/2015
12. Unfortunately, the evidence of PW2 to 4 and the expert opinion may not help the prosecution as it has failed to prove the actual seizure of MO1 Pen drive as per Ex.P2 mahazar. It is forthcoming that MO1 Pen drive is containing the voice sample of accused No.1 and PW1. However, it is an electronic evidence and collected from the mobile phone of PW1. Thus, mobile phone of PW1 is a primary source of material evidence. The said mobile phone is not seized by the I.O. During the course of cross examination of PW3 he has clearly admitted to said fact.
13. Moreover, MO1 is seized under Ex.P2 mahazar. The prosecution has not examined the mahazar witnesses to Ex.P2 before this Court. The first informant PW1 has not spoken anything with regard to drawing up of Ex.P2 mahazar and seizure of MO1 before him. In such circumstances, for not proving the seizure of MO1 containing voice sample of accused No.1 it would be difficult to accept the documentary evidence against the accused. 11 C.C.No.12824/2015 The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that it is possible to recreate such MO1 after arrest of the accused. In fact, such question was posed to PW4 and she has stated that no such examination is made by her as to the said aspect. The relevant cross examination portion is culled out below:
"ನನಾನನು ಪಪೆನ್ ಡಪೆಡಡ್ರೃೆವನನುನ್ನು ಪರರೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿದನಾಗ ಅದರಲಲ್ಲಿರನುವ ಧಧ್ವನಿ ಒಒಂದಪೆರೀ ಕಪೆಕೊಠಡಿಯಲಲ್ಲಿ ಇಬಬ್ಬರನು ವವ್ಯಕಕ್ತಿಗಳನನುನ್ನು ಅಕಕ್ಕಪಕಕ್ಕ ಕಕೊರಸಿ ಮನಾತನನಾಡಿದ ಧಧ್ವನಿಯರೀ ಅಥವನಾ ದಕೊರವನಾಣಿ ಸಒಂಭನಾಷಣಪೆಯರೀ ಎಒಂಬ ಬಗಪೆಗ್ಗೆ ಪರರೀಕಪೆ ನಡಪೆಸಿಲಲ್ಲಿ."
14. Thus, as argued by learned counsel for accused it is possible to fabricate MO1 pen drive. To rule out the said possibility of fabrication it was essential for the prosecution to properly prove the drawing up of Ex.P2 mahazar and seizure of MO1 under it. In the absence of such proof not being adduced by the prosecution the benefit of doubt must go to the accused herein.
12 C.C.No.12824/2015
15. In order to prove the act of extortion u/s 384 of IPC the fact in issue that the accused had put PW1 in fear must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case PW1 is refusing to admit the prosecution case. The said ingredient of extortion is thus not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As already observed Ex.P2 mahazar and seizure of MO1 Pen drive is not duly proved by the prosecution. Therefore, in spite of the expert opinion and documentary evidence in its favour, the prosecution has failed to prove the act of extortion, criminal conspiracy and intimidation beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, points no.1 to 3 are answered in the negative.
16. Point No.4: For the findings stated above this Court deems fit to pass the following:
ORDER Exercising the power conferred u/s 248(1) of CrPC the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec. 384, 506 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. 13 C.C.No.12824/2015
Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled after the appeal period is over.
The properties MO1 to 5 seized in this case are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 6 th day of November 2020.) (Vignesh Kumar) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Anildas P.W.2 : Gudlesh P.W.3 : E.B.Sridhar P.W.4 : C.Srividya
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : First information
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P3 : Report
Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P4 : Consent letter
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P5 : Notice
14 C.C.No.12824/2015
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P6 : Translation copy
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P7 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P8 : Acknowledgement
Ex.P9 : FSL report
Ex.P10 : Sample seal
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Objects:
MO1 : Pen Drive
MO2 to 5 : CDs
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.
15 C.C.No.12824/2015
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Exercising the power conferred u/s 248(1) of CrPC the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec. 384, 506 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled after the appeal period is over.
The properties MO1 to 5 seized in this case are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.