Bangalore District Court
State By Vidyaranyapura Ps vs In Cc No.9191/2012 (Original Cc ... on 16 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE
Dated this the 16th day of April 2016
Present : Sri. Venkataraman Bhat,
B.Sc., LL.B. (Spl)
IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 CR.PC.,
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No.16755/2012
2. The date of commission
of the offence : 10.06.2012
3. Name of the complainant : State by Vidyaranyapura PS
4. Name of the accused : Manja @ Kuruba,
S/o John,
R/a. 1st cross, Near Surya Bakery,
Kempajji Building,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru.
5. The offences complained : U/s.229(A) IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of order : 16.04.2016
Police Sub Inspector, Vidyaranyapura police station placed
charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable
u/s.229(A) of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution, this accused was one of the
accused in CC NO.9191/2012 (Original CC 18257/2006) for the
2 CC.NO.16755/2012
offence punishable u/s.392 of IPC. It is alleged that, though this
accused was enlarged on bail in that case, subsequently he failed
to appear before the court and absconded. Under these
circumstances, non bailable warrant came to be issued against this
accused by the concerned court. Thereafter CW1 arrested this
accused and produced before CW2 along with a report.
3. On the basis of the report submitted by CW1, FIR has been
registered at Crime No.143/2012 of Vidyaranyapura police station.
4. During the course of investigation accused was arrested and
produced before this court. Later he was enlarged on the bail.
5. After submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the
offence has been taken. Copy of charge sheet was furnished as
required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Plea was recorded. Accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. CW1 and CW2 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet.
During the course of trial, CW2 was examined as PW1 and Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.4 got marked. CW1 remained absent.
7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement of
the accused was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused did not
adduce any defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments of Senior APP and advocate for the accused.
3 CC.NO.16755/2012
9. PW1 was working as ASI of Vidyaranyapura Police Station at
the relevant point of time. PW1 has deposed to the effect that, this
accused was arrested by HC 1659 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station
and produced before him.
10. Ex.P.1 is the report submitted by CW1. According to the
prosecution this accused was absconding in CC No.9191/2012
(18257/2006). Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of order sheet in CC
No.18256/2006. It discloses that, this accused was shown as
accused No.1 in that case. It further discloses that, this accused
was granted bail in that case. Since this accused remained absent
subsequently case against him was split up and numbered as
CC 9191/2012. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of body warrant issued
by this court.
11. Now the question for consideration is whether prosecution is
able to prove that this accused failed to appear in CC No.18257/06
and CC 9191/2012 before this court as per the conditions of bail.
One thing is very clear that, this accused was enlarged on bail in
CC No.18257/2006. It further discloses that, this accused was in
JC subsequently in another case. Under these circumstances,
body warrant came to be issued as per Ex.P.4 in this case. When
this accused was in JC of another case, his failure to appear before
this court in CC 9191/2012 cannot be considered as intentional
absent or he was absconding. In my view, the necessary
ingredients of Sec.229(A) if IPC are not established by the
prosecution. Evidence of PW1 is totally silent regarding the
absconding of the accused. When prosecution failed to prove the
4 CC.NO.16755/2012
necessary ingredients of this offence, there is no alternative except
to acquit the accused for want of evidence. Moreover, the CW1 who
arrested this accused was not examined on the side of the
prosecution inspite of taking coercive steps to secure his presence.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.229(A) IPC.
Accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s.229(A) IPC.
Bail bond of accused stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th Day of April 2016) (Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:-
PW.1 : Nagesh Rao List of exhibits marked for prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Report of CW1 Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a): Signature of PW1 Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of order sheet of CC No.18257/2006 Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of body warrant.
5 CC.NO.16755/2012List of M.Os marked for prosecution:- Nil List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Nil.
(Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.6 CC.NO.16755/2012
16.04.2016 State by Sr. APP Accused Judgment ORDER (Pronounced in open court vide separate order) Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.229(A) IPC.
Accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s.229(A) IPC.
Bail bond of accused stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th Day of April 2016) (Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.