Bangalore District Court
State By Amruthahalli Police vs Md. Mansoorulla Hasan on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri Rudolph Pereira B.Com., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of January 2017
C.C. No-2386/2014
Complainant : State by Amruthahalli Police,
Bengaluru
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Md. Mansoorulla Hasan
@ Mansoor s/o Md. Noorulla,
19 yrs, R/at Behind Mujamil
Masjid, Near 2nd Cross of
H.K.B.K. College Front Gate,
Dead End Right Side House,
Govindapura, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru.
2. Syed Suhail Athif @
Suhail @ Athif - Split up
Date of offence : 27-03-2013
Offence : U/S 392 of IPC
2 CC No.2386/2014
Plea of the accused : Accused No-1 Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused No-1 Acquitted
Date of Order : 10-01-2017
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.I. of Amruthahalli P.S., Bengaluru has filed this
charge sheet against accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 27-03-2013 at 11-30 a.m., CW1 Akkiyamma was
proceeding by walk to her house situated at Varma Layout
from Dasarahalli Bus Stop. At that time, the accused No-2
who came there in a Yamaha R-15 bike had introduced
himself as a police and dropped CW1 to her house situated at
8th Cross, Varma Layout. Thereafter, the accused No-2 along
with accused No-1 came to the house of CW1 and asked
3 CC No.2386/2014
drinking water. It is alleged that the CW1 by identifying
accused No-2 when proceeded to give the water stored in
fridge, the accused persons had thrown chilly powder on her
face and robbed her gold chain weighing about 50 grams
worth Rs.1,50,000/- and flew away from the spot in the bike.
Thereby the accused persons had committed the aforesaid
offence.
3. The accused No-1 is on bail. After furnishing the
copies of charge sheet, charge was framed, read over and
explained to both the accused persons by my then learned
predecessor. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. However, vide court orders dated 26-08-2016, the
case against accused No-2 is split up and a separate case in
CC No.21490/2016 is registered against him.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all
four witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked the
documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.7. The learned Sr.APP has
4 CC No.2386/2014
given up CW3 and 8. The other witnesses i.e., CW4 to 7 and
10 did not turn up before this court inspite of coercive steps
taken by this court. Hence by rejecting the prayer of learned
Sr.APP, this court dropped the said witnesses. Thereafter,
the accused No-1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
He denied the incriminating evidence and submitted that he
has no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Sr.APP
and the learned counsel for accused No-1.
6. Herein, the complainant Akkiyamma appeared before
the court as PW2. She has adduced inconsistent evidence
about the alleged incident dated 27-03-2013. It is the case of
prosecution that the split up accused No-2 who had dropped
PW2 to her house had thereafter came along with accused
No-1 on the guise of asking drinking water, robbed the gold
neck chain of PW2 by throwing chilly powder on her face.
But before this court, the PW2 has clearly deposed that
5 CC No.2386/2014
accused No-1 is not one among the said persons who had
robbed her gold chain. She has deposed that she has not seen
the accused and the police did not show the accused in police
station. The prosecution papers would disclose that the PW2
has identified her chain and the accused was shown to her
and her statement was recorded accordingly as per Ex.P4.
But the PW2 has denied the same and stated that she has not
given any statement to the police inrespect of identifying the
accused as per Ex.P4. The above evidence of PW2 indicates
that there is no corroboration between the prosecution case
and the testimony of this witness. Hence, I am of the view
that the evidence of this witness is not fit for consideration.
7. The alleged spot mahazar witness Kumar entered
into the witness box as PW1. But unfortunately this witness
has stated that he has signed the Ex.P1 spot mahazar at police
station. Though the learned Sr.APP treated this witness as
6 CC No.2386/2014
hostile and cross-examined, nothing substantial has been
brought out inrespect of Ex.P1.
8. The prosecution has examined two police officials
namely Babu and Anand as PW3 and PW4 respectively.
PW4 has deposed about apprehension of accused on 26-11-
2013 and production before the S.H.O. PW4 has deposed
about receiving the case file for further investigation from PI
- Panduranga, arrest of accused produced before him,
recording the voluntary statement, recovery of robbed
property etc., and filing of charge sheet after completion of
the investigation.
9. In theft/robbery cases, what is required to be proved
by prosecution is that the nexus between stolen/robbed article
and accused. But, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution
has failed to secure the presence of seizure mahazar
witnesses inspite of coercive steps taken by this court and the
same is fatal to the case of prosecution. In this view of fact,
7 CC No.2386/2014
the whole case of prosecution has been rendered weak and
hence this court does not deem it proper to base conviction
on the evidence available on record. Hence, viewing from
multi dimensional angle, I hold that there is no sufficient,
positive and material evidence to bring home the guilt of
accused No-1. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
Office is directed to keep the entire records in split up case i.e., CC No.21490/2016, which is pending against accused No-2.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10-01- 2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
8 CC No.2386/2014ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Kumar
P.W.2 : Akkiyamma
P.W.3 : Babu
P.W.4 : Anand
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.3 : Photograph
Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P.5 : Voluntary Statement of
A1 (Copy)
Ex.P.6 : Seizure Mahazar
(True Copy)
Ex.P.7 : Voluntary Statement
of A2 (Copy)
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.9 CC No.2386/2014
10-01-2017 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
Office is directed to keep the entire records in split up case i.e., CC No.21490/2016, which is pending against accused No-2.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.