Bangalore District Court
State By Kodigehalli Police vs Velu @ Plegu S/O Mani on 21 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 21st day of January 2020
PRESENT:
Smt. Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni,
B.Com., L L.B. (Spl.),
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
C.C. No.8558/2011
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli Police
Station, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : Velu @ Plegu s/o Mani, 36 yrs,
R/at No.4, 3rd Main, Armstrong
Road, Bharathinagar, Bengaluru.
Date of offence : 21-09-2010
Offences complained
of : Section 454, 380 IPC
Plea of the : Accused pleaded
Accused not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 21-01-2020
2 CC No.8558/2011
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Inspector of Kodigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru City, has filed charge sheet against accused
for the offences punishable under Section 454, 380 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are
that-
In between 09.20 a.m. and 4.15 p.m. on 21-09-
2010, the accused committed lurking house trespass into
the house of CW1 K.M.Sharada situated at No.1518/13,
9th Main, 21st Cross, 'B' Block, Sahakaranagar,
Bengaluru-92, by way of break opening the door and
committed theft of gold ornaments such as long chain,
bangles, ring, ear rings and titan wrist watch containing
gold chain etc., kept in the bedroom almirah, totally
worth about Rs.4,50,000/-. Thereby the accused
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Accused is in Judicial Custody under body
warrant in this case. After furnishing charge-sheet
copies, charge for the alleged offences was framed, read
over and explained to accused in the language known to
3 CC No.8558/2011
him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all eight witnesses as PW1 to 8, produced
documents as Ex.P1 to 11 and material objects as per
MO1 to 12. Thereafter, the statement of accused, as
required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he
has denied the incriminating evidence deposed against
him and did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments.
6. As already noted, the prosecution in order to
prove its case has examined in all eight witnesses. PW1
K.M.Sharada - the complainant has deposed in her chief
examination evidence that on 21-09-2010 at 9.20 a.m.,
she had been to work by locking her house. When
returned at 4.15 p.m., she noticed that there was theft of
about 700 grams gold ornaments i.e., long chain,
bangles, rings, ear ring and a titan wrist watch, totally
worth about Rs.5 lakhs. PW1 further deposed that in that
regard she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 and police
conducted Ex.P2 mahazar at the spot. PW1 by
identifying the photograph of ornaments as Ex.P3 and
ornaments as MO1 to 12 has stated that after three
4 CC No.8558/2011
months the Ashoknagar Police called her to police
station and showed the accused. In the cross-
examination of PW1 by defence side, it is elicited that in
Ex.P1 it is not written as to there was theft of 12 items
and that she came to know from accused that he is the
theif.
7. PW2 Nanjundegowda is the spot mahazar
witness. PW2 has deposed in his chief examination
evidence that on 21-09-2010, the police visited near the
house of PW1 and conducted Ex.P2 mahazar in respect
of the theft occurred therein. In the cross-examination of
PW2 by defence side, he denied that he signed Ex.P2 in
the police station.
8. PW3 Radhakrishna, then P.I. of Ashoknagar
P.S. has deposed in his chief examination evidence that
on 28/12/2010 the staff i.e., CW11 to 19 were deputed for
special duty in Crime No.538/2010. On the same day, his
staff had produced the accused through a report at Ex.P4.
He seized the crowbar possessed by accused under
Ex.P5 mahazar in the presence of panchas and recorded
their statements. He recorded the voluntary statement of
accused as per Ex.P6, in which he disclosed that he had
committed theft in 12 different places during day and
5 CC No.8558/2011
night time in Bengaluru, as such the accused was
produced before court and taken for police custody. On
03-01-2011, in view of court order, got released the
material objects appearing in Ex.P3 photograph in
favour of complainant, by way of obtaining necessary
bonds and thereafter got transferred the case file to
Kodigehalli P.S., on the point of jurisdiction. In the
cross-examination of PW3 by defence side, he denied
that the accused was not produced before him by his
staff and that the crowbar possessed by accused was not
seized etc.,.
9. PW4 Prakash - the HC of Ashoknagar P.S. has
deposed in his chief examination evidence that on 28-
12-2010, himself and his colleagues were deputed for
trace of accused and property in Crime No.538/2010, at
about 5.50 p.m., on the basis of credible information
given by informers, they have apprehended the accused
under suspicion at Basappa Road of Shanthinagar, who
was in possession of an iron rod in his waist and
produced before SHO through a report. In the cross-
examination by defence side, PW4 admitted that there
is flow of public in the place of apprehension of accused
and that no arrest mahazar is conducted.
6 CC No.8558/2011
10. PW5 Shivakumar is the panch witness to Ex.P7
seizure mahazar. But this witness has deposed in his
evidence that he signed Ex.P7 in the Ashoknagar P.S.
and he doesn't remember the date, so also the averments
of Ex.P7. PW6 Ramesh - the panch witness to seizure
mahazar at Ex.P8 did not support the case of
prosecution. He deposed that the accused was not shown
to him, he was not taken to Chennai along with accused,
he doesn't know the averments of Ex.P8 mahazar and
that he has not given any statement. PW7 Bhaskar - the
panch witness to another seizure mahazar at Ex.P5 also
did not support the case of prosecution. He deposed that
the accused was not shown to him in Ashoknagar P.S.,
he doesn't know to read and write Kannada and that he
doesn't know the reason for taking his signature to
Ex.P5 and he has not given any statement. Though the
prosecution treated these witnesses as hostile and cross-
examined, nothing substantial has been brought out with
regard to respective mahazars. PW6 and 7 have denied
of giving statements as per Ex.P9 and 10 respectively.
11. PW8 Chandrashekar - the then P.I. of
Kodigehalli P.S. has deposed in his chief examination
evidence that on 22-09-2010, he took the case file from
7 CC No.8558/2011
CW22, on 01-02-2011 the Ashoknagar Police had traced
the accused, property and transferred the case file for
further investigation on the point of jurisdiction. He got
enclosed the properties in the PF of their station and as
the investigation of case was completed, filed charge
sheet against accused. In the cross-examination of PW8
by defence side, he denied that false charge sheet has
been filed.
12. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence
available on record. As per the chief examination
evidence of PW1, after three months, the Ashoknagar
Police called her to station and shown the accused. It
appears that, PW1 came to know from police that
accused is the thief. However, in the cross-examination
by defence side, PW1 deposed that she came to know
from accused that he is the thief.
13. In theft or robbery cases, the version of seizure
mahazar witnesses is material to prove the alleged
offence against accused. It is the case of prosecution
that the stolen property pertaining to this case were
seized under a mahazar on the information given by
accused and the same are mentioned in PF No.145/2010.
The relevant mahazar is marked as Ex.P8. As already
8 CC No.8558/2011
noted, one of the seizure mahazar witness to Ex.P8 i.e.,
PW6 has turned hostile. The evidence of receiver,
another panch i.e., CW6, 8 is not made available to
court inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. As such,
it cannot be said that the recovery of stolen property
pertaining to this case on the information given by
accused is established beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Further as already noted, the panch witnesses
i.e., PW5 for recovery of vehicle used for committing
theft etc., under Ex.P7 and PW7 for recovery of iron rod
possessed by accused under Ex.P5, have also turned
hostile. The evidence of other seizure panchas for the
said mahazars is not made available to court inspite of
giving sufficient opportunities. Regarding apprehension
of accused, no mahazar appears to have been drawn, as
elicited in the cross-examination of PW4. Though in the
cross of PW4, it is elicited that there is flow of public in
the place of arrest of accused, the persons of that locality
are not been examined.
15. So to sum up, on careful scrutiny of the
prosecution evidence available on record, this court is of
the considered opinion that the same is totally
insufficient, so as to connect the accused in this case.
9 CC No.8558/2011
Furthermore, the finger prints at spot would have played
important role in this case. But it appears that the
Investigating Officer has not taken any steps in this
regard. There are no cogent and material circumstances
to connect accused for the alleged theft. Hence, the
prosecution failed to establish its case against accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled
for the benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following-
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC.
The body warrant issued against accused is recalled and the jail authorities are directed to release him forthwith, if not required in any other crime.
The interim custody of properties at MO1 to 12 appearing in Ex.P3 photograph already granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute and 10 CC No.8558/2011 the same shall come into effect, after the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer. The computerized print out taken by Steno is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on this day i.e., 21-01-2020) (Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
PW1 : K.M.Sharada
PW2 : Nanjundegowda
PW3 : Radhakrishna
PW4 : Prakash
PW5 : Shivakumar
PW6 : Ramesh
PW7 : Bhaskar
PW8 : Chandrashekar
List of Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 : Photograph
Ex.P4 : Report of CW11 (true copy)
11 CC No.8558/2011
Ex.P5 : Seizure Mahazar (true copy)
Ex.P6 : Voluntary Statement of
Accused (true copy)
Ex.P7, 8 : Seizure Mahazars (true copies)
Ex.P9 : Statement of PW5
Ex.P10 : Statement of PW6
Ex.P11 : Letter
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Gold Bangle
MO2 : One Pair Gold Bangles
MO3 : Gold Coin Bangles
MO4 : Gold Long Chain with Dollar
MO5 : Gold Ring
MO6 : Red and Green Stones Necklace
MO7 : Lakshmi Necklace
MO8 : Gold Chain with Pendent
MO9 : Fancy Gold Ring
having two stones
MO10 : One Pair Gold Bangles
MO11 : Gold Bangles
MO12 : Fancy Ear Rings
List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil C.M.M., BENGALURU.12 CC No.8558/2011
21-01-2020 (Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC.
The body warrant issued against accused is recalled and the jail authorities are directed to release him forthwith, if not required in any other crime.
The interim custody of properties at MO1 to 12 appearing in Ex.P3 photograph already granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute and the same shall come into effect, after the completion of appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.