Bangalore District Court
Rohith V vs Mubarak on 13 September, 2024
KABC030279242015
Presented on : 16-04-2015
Registered on : 16-04-2015
Decided on : 13-09-2024
Duration : 9 years, 4 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 13th day of September, 2024
C.C. No.9985/2015
State by High Ground Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Mubarak
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Sri Nazeer,
R/at No.56, 9th Cross,
Padarayanapura, Jagajeevanram Nagara,
Bengaluru-26.
KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
2. Sri Yograj @ Raj
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri Late Gangaiah,
R/at No.50, 8th Cross,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri K. Elangovan Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 20-09-2013
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri Rohit.V.
3. Offences complained of Under Section 379,
465, 471, 420, 201,
120(b) of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2
are not found guilty
6. Date of order 13-09-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of High Grounds Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 2 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 379, 465, 471, 420, 201, 102(B) of IPC
2. Prosecution Case: On 20-09-2013 in between 3.45 to 4.20 p.m. the accused No.1 stolen/theft the Honda Splender vehicle bearing registration No. KA 41 Q 7164 worth of Rs.23,000/- belongs to CW1 Sri Rohit.V., which was parked in front of his house "Sri Maruti Krupa", bearing No.3/3-1 situated at Vasanthanagara, Palace Loof Road within the limits of High Grounds Police Station and sold the same to accused No.2. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 with criminal conspiracy created a fake RC book and seal in order to destroy the evidence, removed the number plate of KA 41 Q 7164 of the said vehicle and replaced the same with a fake number plate number KA 42 H 7327, prepared fake RC book for the said vehicle and sold the vehicle to one Sri Ambareesh by used the forged documents as genuine.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of complaint CW1 as per Ex.P1, CW15/PW5 Sri Ganganna, ASI of High Grounds police Station CW16/PW5 registered Crime No.287/2013 against unknown for the offenses punishable under Section 379 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P6 and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
3KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
4. Investigation: During the course of investigation, CW16/PW5 registered the case and conducted the spot mahazar on 21-9-2013 at 6.30 pm to 7.00 p.m. as per Ex.P3 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 and handed over the case papers to CW17. On the receipt of case papers, CW17/PW7 proceeded with investigation and submitted "C" final report as the accused and stolen properties were not traced out. Thereafter, on 15-12-2014 obtained permission from the court to re-open the case as per Ex.P9 requisition and submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences u/Sec.379, 420, 465, 471, 120(B), 201 of IPC.
5. The accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 24-06-2016.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2.
8. Charge: After hearing the learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, charge for the 4 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 offences punishable U/Sec. 379, 420, 465, 471, 120(B), 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 17 witnesses however examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents and closed their side. Despite execution of proclamation, the presence of CW2, CW3, CW7, CW9 and CW5, CW6, CW8, CW10 and CW11 could not be secured and hence they were dropped by order dated 29-05-2019, 07-10-2022 and 26-12-2022. The examination of CW16 was dropped by order dated 17- 11-2023 on account of non-availability of his death.
10. Statement of accused as per section 313 of Cr P C: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
5KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20-09-2013 between 3.45 to 4.00 p.m. accused No.1 stolen the honda splender vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 41 Q 7164 worth Rs.23,000/- belongs to CW1 Rohit.V., which was parked in front of his house No.3/3-1, Sri Maruthi Krupa situated at Vasanathanagara, Palace Loof road within the jurisdiction of High Grounds PS thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 sold the above mentioned stolen vehicle to accused No.2 and both with common dishonest intention to make wrongful gain hatched a 6 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 plan and replaced the forged number plate bearing No.KA 42 H 7327 and created fake R.C. documents for replaced number plate thereby resulted in commission of the offences punishable under Section 465 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 sold the above mentioned stolen vehicle to accused No.2 and both with common dishonest intention to have wrongful gain hatched a plan and replaced the forged number plate bearing No.KA 42 H 7327 and created fake R.C. documents for replaced number plate and sold the vehicle to one Sri Ambareesha and cheated him thereby resulted in commission of the offences punishable under Section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt 7 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 that the accused persons with common intention to commit an offence used the forged documents as genuine knowingly well that the document is forged document thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons to do an illegal act have entered into agreement thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 120(b) R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons intentionally created a fake RC book and seal in order to destroy the evidence thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 R/W sec.34 of IPC?
8KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
7. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-5 : As per observation Point No.6 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 4: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, which are as follows i. CW1 Sri Rohit examined as PW1 deposed that he possessed splendor bike bearing No. K A 4 Q 7164 in 2013. He in the month of September 2013 parked his two-wheeler on place road, Opposite to Mount Carmel College around 4 pm and went on a work and returned at 4.30 pm and saw that his bike was missing. He searched and thereafter on the next day, he lodged the complaint regarding theft of his two- wheeler. The value of two-wheeler was round Rs. 23,000/-. He identified his signature on the 9 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 complaint and the same is marked as Ex. P. 1 and his signature as Ex. P. 1A. The police have drawn the mahazar at the spot where he parked his two- wheeler. He identified his signature on the spot mahazar and the same is marked as Ex. P. 2 and his signature is marked as Ex. P. 2A. After 1 and ½ year, the police called him up to the Police Station for identification of his two-wheeler however the same was in damaged condition and hence he could not take possession of two-wheeler. Thereafter he received Rs. 23,000/- from insurance company as compensation.
ii. CW2 Sri Azeef examined as PW2 deposed that he is having Sai motors Garage near the Government Hospital at Sulibele. He does not know the accused persons. He identified his signature on one document and the same was signed in the Sulibele police station. He pleaded ignorance about the contents of document. The accused No. 1 did not sell any two- wheeler. He did not give any statement before the police. He identified his signature on seizure mahazar and the same is marked as Ex. P. 3 and Ex. P. 3A. The prosecution treated this witness as a hostile witness and cross examined him however did not elicit anything from him to support the prosecution case.
iii. CW13 Sri Gajendra examined as PW3 and CW13 Sri Satish examined as PW4 deposed that on 10 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 18/08/2014, PSI deputed him and CW13 for tracing the accused No. 4 and 5 in crime No. 122/2014. Based upon the credible information from the informer, around 9.30 pm , the accused No.4 was traced at Agaraha Magadi Road, 4th Cross Road and brought to the police station and produced before CW16. In this regard, he has given report as per Ex. P. 5 and he identified the accused No. 2 in this case.
iv. CW15 Sri Ganganna examined as PW5 deposed that on 21/09/2013, he was in charge of Police station at 6.15, CW1 came to the police station with the written complaint and registered crime No. 287/2013 for the alleged offence punishable under section 379 of IPC. He identified his signature on the complaint-Ex. P. 1 and the same is marked as Ex. P. 1B. He identified his signature on FIR and the same is marked as Ex. P. 6 and 6A. Thereafter on the same day, he visited the spot mahazar in the presence of Pancha witnesses CW2 and CW3 from 6.30 till 7 pm as per Ex. P. 3. His signature is marked as Ex. P.3b.
v. CW14 Sri Dadapheer examined as PW6 deposed that on 07/12/2014, based upon the place of offence committed, he handed over the documents and seized properties to the High Ground Police Station and received the acknowledgment as per Ex. P. 7 and 8.
11KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 vi. CW17 Sri Ravi M S IO examined as PW7 deposed that, on 25/09/2013, he received the case papers from the CW15 for further investigation. He deputed the police personnel's for tracing the stolen two-wheeler and the accused person however could not trace the accused and two-wheeler on 25/01/2014 and hence C final report was submitted. On 07/12/2014, CW16 has acknowledged the documents and properties from J J Nagara Police Station and on 15/12/2014, he obtained the permission from magistrate and the same report is marked as Ex. P. 9 and his signature as Ex. P. 9A. On 22/12/2014, he completed the investigation and submitted the charge against the accused.
15. It appears from the record that Police Sub- Inspector of Jagajeevannagara Police Station Sri Anjinappa recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 1 and 2 on 07/08/2014 wherein the accused No. 1 in respect of this case has given the statement which has been reiterated
೭) ಇದಾದ ೪ ದಿನದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಒಬ್ಬವನೇ ವಸಂತ ನಗರ ಪ್ಲೇಸ್ ರೋಡ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಧ್ಯಾ ಹ್ನದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೀಗ ಹಾಗಿ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದ ಹೀರೋ ಹೋಂಡಾ ಪ್ಲಸ್ ಗಾಡಿಯನ್ನು ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡಿ ಸದರಿ ಗಾಡಿಯನ್ನು ದಾಸರಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಾಸಿಯಾದ ಯೋಗರಾಜ್ವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟವು ಯೋಗರಾಜ್ರವರು ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ನಕಲಿ ಆರ್ ಸಿ ಪುಸ್ತಕವನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿ ಹೊಸಕೋಟೆ ಸೂಲಿಬೆಲೆ ನಿವಾಸಿ ಆಸಿಫ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನನಗೇ ಮಾರಾಟ ಬಂದ ಹಣದ ಪೈಕಿ ಯೋಗರಾಜ್ 12 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 ರವರು ೫,೦೦೦/- ರೂ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ನೆ. ನಾನು ಬಂದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡುರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Based upon the said voluntary statement of accused No. 1 and 2, police inspector has secured the opinion of RTO, Ramanagara on 21/10/2014 wherein he had given the report as "ನೊಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಈ ಕಚೇರಿಯದ್ದಾ ಗಿದೆ, ಆದರೆ ಇಂಜಿನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಿ ನಂಬರ ಹೊಂದಾಣಿಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ".
16. The first allegation is theft. Section 379 of the IPC requires four essentials viz. (a) that the accused had taken the movable property dishonestly,
(b) property was taken out of possession of PW1, (c) property was taken out without consent of PW1 and
(d) the property was moved to such taking. To full-fill the requirements under Section 379 of the IPC, the above mentioned ingredients must be full-filled but PW1 submitted that the vehicle was in the police station after 1 ½ year however he refused to take the vehicle as it was in damaged condition. PW1 never stated anything in his chief examination that the vehicle number was changed to KA42 H7327.
17. Based upon the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused No. 1 and 2 has stolen the vehicle number No. K A 4 Q 7164 as the prosecution failed to secure the presence of seizure panchaname witnesses namely CW5 Sri Naasir S/o Parau and CW6 namely Baabaa S/o. Hydersab as 13 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 the entire cases rests upon the Ex. P. 3 which was said to have drawn on 08/08/2014 wherein one of the Two wheeler seized under Ex. P. 3 is black colour Hero Honda Plus Motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA 42-H--7327 Engine No. HA10EAAHE14192 and Chasis No. MBL HA10EEAHE12801.
18. According to the prosecution case, PW2 claims to be in possession of 20 vehicles however he denied the drawing of seizure mahazar as per Ex. P.
3.
19. At the time of drawing of seizure mahazar as per Ex. P. 3 by Sri Anthappa PSI of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, neither photographs were taken nor the proceedings were video graphed in the presence of CW4/PW2 or in the presence of seizure mahazar witness namely CW5 and CW6 to corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 379 of IPC and hence Point No. 1 for determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
20. The accused was charged for the offence punishable for forgery. The relevant provision for forgery is
463. Forgery.--3 [Whoever makes 14 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 in The Indian Penal Code Making a false document.-- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fradulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part 15 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with 342 [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 342 [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of 16 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
465. Punishment for forgery.--
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
21. It is the case of prosecution that the accused No. 1 sold the two wheeler to the accused No. 2 and both with dishonest intention and with accused No.1 and 2 with criminal conspiracy created a fake RC book and seal removed the number plate of KA 41 Q 7164 of the said vehicle and replaced the same with a fake number plate number KA 42 H 7327.
22. It is seen from documents transferred from Jagajeevanram Nagara Police Station as per Ex. P. 8 to the High Grounds Police Station wherein the fake RC Book and B-extract was produced. Though two wheeler bearing KA 42 H 7327 Engine No. HA10EAAHE14192 and Chasis No. MBL HA10EEAHE12801 and RC Book in respect of KA 42 H 7327 was subjected to the property form No.131/2014 dated 07/12/2014 and had given 17 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 requisition in the PF and permission obtained that he will retain the RC Book and the same will be produced at the time of final report. However the best known reasons to the PW7 why was not produced before this court as part of final report.
23. It appears from the record that the B-Extract in respect of KA 42 H 7327 was in the name of Chikkanna C S/o. Ramaiah resident No. Ramapura, Aglahalli, Ramanagara District that has an engine No. HA10EA89D29936 and Chasis No. MBL HA10EEA89D25337 but that itself, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused No. 1 and 2 has forged the RC Book unless the said RC book was produced before this court and the same was in the name of PW2 Sri Aseef and prior to which, the accused No. 1 was the owner of two wheeler bearing No. KA 42 H 7327 and thereafter the accused No. 1 sold the same to the accused No. 2. Even if the version of prosecution had to be believed, then, PW2 could have supported the case of prosecution rather deposed in the cross examination by the counsel for the accused as under:
ಸಾಯಿ ಮೋಟರ್ಸ್ ರಾಜಣ್ಣ ಎಂಬುವರಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ನಾನು ಅವರು ಅಂಗಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಇದ್ದೆನು. ಸಾಯಿ ಮೋಟಾರ್ಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಗಳು ನನಗೆ ತಿಲಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಗ್ಯಾ ರೇಜ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿಲ್ಲ.18
KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 Thus, it is clear that he is not the owner of Sai motors and more so over PW7 did not produce any document to show that he was the owners of Sai motors or the alleged vehicle two wheeler bearing No. KA 42 H 7327 was in possession of PW2.
24. According to the prosecution that the accused No. 1 and 2 sold 20 vehicles to the PW2, then, how the Police Station did not register any case against the PW2 for possession of these stolen 20 vehicles
25. It appears from the evidence of PW7 that ಚಾಸಾ ೧೬ ರವರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಚ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಅದರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಮಾಲುನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತ್ತು ಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖೆಲೆಗಳು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, it is clear that he received all the documents and property in this case. Since, the Original documents of RC Book stands in the name of accused No. 1 and No. 2 and PW2 was not produced to substantiate that vehicle number was forged, so the graver form of offence of forgery under Section 467 IPC was not made out.
19KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
26. PW7 had not taken any steps to prove/examine the previous owners in respect of two wheeler bearing No. KA 42 H 7327 and compared with the original RC Book to come to a conclusion that RC book in respect of two wheeler bearing No. KA 42 H 7327 was forged and fabricated. PW7 despite availability of RC book fails to produce the same. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove charge under Section 465 of IPC against the accused. So, the points No.2 for determination are decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
27. Point No. 3: Whether the accused has used the forged vehicle number for purpose of cheating and used the same as the genuine document.
It is the case of prosecution that the accused No. 1 and 2 had given fake RC Book and fake vehicle number to PW2 to cheat PW2 knowing fully well that RC Book and fake vehicle number is a forged document but the PW7 did not produce the same. Without production of original fake RC Book in respect of vehicle number KA 42 H 7327, how this court can come to a conclusion that the accused No. 1 and 2 with dishonest intention and criminal conspiracy has forged the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 from KA 41 Q 7164.
20KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
28. PW7 has not made the RTO of Ramanagar as a witness to speak about the alleged forgery as he had given his opinion about the fake vehicle number and RC Book. When the prosecution failed to prove the forgery, the question of production of RC Book before the PW2 knowing fully well that the same is a fake document does not arise thereby the question of constituting the offence under section 471 of IPC was not made out. It was further required to be proved that the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 in question was forged and fabricated by the prosecution. It was further required to be proved that the accused fraudulently and dishonestly used the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 from KA 41 Q 7164 knowing or having reason to believe the same is forged and fabricated. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 was forged and fabricated. No evidence was led to the effect that the accused No. 1 and 2 knew that the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 from KA 41 Q 7164 was forged and fabricated. Under these circumstances, offence under Section 468 and 471 of IPC was also not made out against the accused thereby the point No.3 for determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
29. Point No. 4. The prosecution claims that the accused committed offence under Section 420 of IPC. According to Section 420 IPC, offence is made out 21 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 against a person who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or part of any valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed, which is being capable of converted into valuable security. In the instant case, there is no allegation to the effect that the accused caused delivery of any property from PW2 Sri Aseef. In so far as the question of forgery and fabrication of RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 is concerned, the PW2 has not supported the prosecution case that the accused No. 1 and 2 dishonestly induced PW2 to part his money was not explained. When the prosecution failed to make out a case for forgery, then the question of cheating does not arise and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs R.Jawaharaj and Ors reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2434. Thus, no ingredient for offence under Section 420 IPC against the accused was made out. So, the point No. 4 for determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
30. The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the accused No. 1 and 2. An agreement forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface 22 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 in evidence through some physical manifestation. The charge of conspiracy alleged by the prosecution against accused No. 1 and 2 must evidence explicit acts or conduct on his part, manifesting conscious and apparent concurrence of a common design with them. It has been held in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Navjot Sandhu reported in 3 (2005) 11 SCC 600 held that "101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
23KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
31. In view of the clear enunciation of law on the criminal conspiracy, the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to satisfy that there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused No. 1 and 2. There is no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances, declarations, or the conduct of the acused No. 1 and 2 unless it was produced with earlier photograph with the engine number and Chasis number and the present photograph at the time of filing of charge sheet with the engine number and chasis number and the RC Book and thereby the point No. 5 for determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
32. Point No. 6: Whether the accused has destroyed the evidence.
In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, -- mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient -- that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false."
24KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
33. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:
I) committal of an offence;
II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;
III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment."
and these principles were appreciated in the case of Sukhram Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3050. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under section 201 of IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused 25 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown."
34. It ought to be seen that the RC Book and vehicle number KA 42 H 7327 from KA 41 Q 7164 was not produced. There is no evidence that vehicle was with registration number KA 41 Q 7164 with the same engine and chasis number. Without production of RC Book and photograph of vehicle, how this court could come to a conclusion that the accused No. 1 and 2 with common intention has destroyed the evidence thereby point No. 6 for determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour of the defence. Thus, it is clear that there is a defective investigation on the part of PW7 despite being fully aware that the original documents are required for proving the charges of forgery and consequential offences arisen therein. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be accorded to the accused NO. 1 and 2 as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused No. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs State of Maharastra reported in (2018) 3 SCC 66.
35. Point No. 7:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 to 5, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER 26 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.379, 465, 471, 420, 120(B), 201 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of September, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri. Rohit
PW2 : Sri Azeef
27
KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015
PW3 : Sri Gajendra
PW4 : Sri Satish
PW5 : Sri Ganganna
PW6 : Sri Dadapheer
PW7 : Sri Ravi M S
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : spot mahazar Ex.P3 : seizure mahazar Ex.P4 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P5 : Report Ex.P6 : FIR Ex.P7&8: letter and acknowledgment Ex.P9 : permission for reopening the letter dated 15/12/2014 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil 28 KABC030279242015 CC No.9985/2015 VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.29