Bangalore District Court
Has Become Hostile And Not Identified ... vs Who Has Been Produced Through Jc And Not on 6 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th day of September 2018.
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.18854/2017
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 18854/2017
2. The date of commission 03/04/2017
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Chandralayout P.S.
4. Name of the accused Tanweer Pasha @ Tannu
s/o Fayaz Pasha @ Tippu
aged about 33 years
r/at above Mutturayana
Bande, near Mecca Masjid,
10th cross, Gangondanahalli,
Bangalore.(JC)
5. The offence complained of U/s. 454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of
or proved IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 06092018
For the following:
2 C.C.18854/2017
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI of Chandralayout P.S. against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
That the accused in between 21032017 at about 1.00 p.m., to 23032017 at about 10.30 a.m., at House No.23, situated at 1st Cross, with an intention to steal and attempted to break open the keys of the house with an iron rod which was belonging to CW1 and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused was in JC. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 C.C.18854/2017
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 and P2 and MO1. Accused has been questioned u/sec. 313 of Cr.PC.
5. Heard arguments from both the sides.
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in between 21032017 at about 1.00 p.m., to 23032017 at about 10.30 a.m., at house No.23, 1st Cross, the accused with an intention to steal and attempted to break open the keys of the house with an iron rod which was belonging to CW1 and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC?
2. What order?4 C.C.18854/2017
7. The answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
8. Point No.1: In the present case on hand, in order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4. Among them, PW1 who is the complainant has become hostile and not identified the accused who has been produced through JC and not supported the case of the prosecution.
9. In the present case on hand, since no valuable items have been thefted from the house of PW1. Under those circumstances, the provisions of Section 380 is not attracted, because as per the definition of Section 378 of IPC no property has been thefted from the house of PW1.
5 C.C.18854/2017
10. In the present case on hand, the prosecution has further exmined PW2 to 4 who are the police official witnesses. Except the PW1 and evidence of police witnesses the remaining independent witnesses i.e., CW2 to 6 and 8 & 9 have not been secured and they were came to be dropped has not secured. Further it is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of PW2 and 4 who are the IOs except the recovery of MO1 i.e., iron rod no property has been recovered from the accused with respect to this case.
11. Further it is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of PW1 as per the say of his uncle he came to know that the accused has tried to theft his home. On perusal of entire evidence available on record there is nothing before this court to show that in between 21 032017 1.00 p.m., to 23032017 the accused has thefted the house of PW1.
6 C.C.18854/2017
12. In the absence of such material witness this court cannot hold the accused liable for the offence punishable u/s 380 of IPC as earlier discussed above. In the present case on hand, the seizure mahazar witness and spot mahazar witness are turned hostile and not supported to the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
13. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.7 C.C.18854/2017
Issue release intimation of accused to Jail Authorities forthwith if accused is not required in any other case.
MO1 seized to be destroyed if it is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 6 th day of September 2018.) (M. Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
: Annexure :
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 : Ayyappa PW2 : Ravikumar C PW3 : Hanumagowda Patil PW4 : Veerendraprasad
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of witness Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of witness 8 C.C.18854/2017 Ex.P3 : Statement of PW1 Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW2
3. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL
4. List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
NIL Material Object:
MO1 - Iron rod VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore. 9 C.C.18854/2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 454, 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Issue release intimation of accused to Jail Authorities forthwith if accused is not required in any other case.
MO1 seized to be destroyed if it is not required in any other case.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.