Bangalore District Court
Peenya P.S vs Is Acquitted on 8 February, 2023
1
KABC030482402013
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of February 2023
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.11886-2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1) Sl. No. of the Case 11886-2013
2) The date of commission 27/02/2013
of the offence
3) Name of the complainant Peenya P.S.
4) Name of the accused Ramesh,S/o.Ramaiah,
35 Years, R/at No.4,
P.C.Ramaiah Building,
Tenginamara Road,
Goraguntepalya,
Bangalore
5) The offence complained U/sec.420 of IPC.
of or proved
6) Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7) State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8) Accused represented by: Sri.JP Advocate, Bengaluru.
9) Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
10) Date of such order 08/02/2023
For the following:-
2
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Peenya Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
Accused on 27.02.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. on NH4, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station., when CW.4 & 7 were checking the tickets of the passengers by bording Bus No.F-4847 the accused found travelling in the BMTC Bus by affixing his photo on the identity card of deceased - T.K. Manjunath, Driver, Badge No.17873 and thereby cheated the BMTC and thereby accused has committed the alleged offence.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.420 IPC. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2, but not got marked any documents. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused has placed no evidence.
3
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused on 27.02.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. on NH4, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station., when CW.4 & 7 were checking the tickets of the passengers by bording Bus No.F-4847 the accused found travelling in the BMTC Bus by affixing his photo on the identity card of deceased - T.K. Manjunath, Driver, Badge No.17873 and thereby cheated the BMTC and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s. 420 of IPC.?
2. What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
4 REASONS
8.Point No.1 :-
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has affixed his photo to the identity card of another BMTC Driver and travelled in BMTC buses without taking tickets and cheated the BMTC .
In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses but not got marked any documents.
9.PW.1 is the Conductor, PW.2 is the Driver alleged to be on duty on the date of alleged incident.. The witness summons issued to other witnesses, but the prosecution has failed to secure any other witnesses.
10.CW.5 is examined as PW.1, he is a Conductor and he deposed that on 27.02.2013 in between 2.00 - 2.30 p.m. when he was on duty in KSTC Bus bearing No.4847 and Route No.265/A/7 and CW.6 was the driver to the said bus. When the said bus reached to RMC Yard, the CW.4 and 7, who are the checking officers boarded the bus and started to verify the tickets of the passengers, at that time it was found that the accused has misused the card by affixing his photograph to the identity card of another person. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has not produced any documents to show that he is on duty, on the date of alleged incident. He also admitted that there is no documents 5 produced to show that the CW.4 and 7 have boarded the said bus on the date of alleged incident for checking the tickets. He also admitted that several passengers travelling in the bus every day. So he is unable to identify each and every passenger.
11.CW.6 is examined as PW.2, he is the Driver of the said bus. He also deposed that on the date of alleged incident he was on duty as a Driver along with the CW.5, in Jalahalli Cross, Checking Officers boarded the bus and started to verify the tickets of the passengers. He did not know what happened further and what are the conversations between the checking officers and passangers. He is unable to identify the accused and said because of lapse of time he was unable to identify the accused and he has not given any statement to the police. But in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP., he identified the accused and also his statement. Again in the cross-examination by defense counsel, he admitted that when he was on duty, he was unaware about the proceedings or incident took place behind his back in the said bus.
12.The CW.1, who is alleged to be complainant and CW.4 and 7, who are alleged to be the Checking Officers have not stepped into the witness box and the investigating officer who has filed the charge sheet has also failed to adduce evidence . Inspite of granting sufficient time the 6 concerned police has failed to secure CW.1 to 4, 7 and 8. Therefore, their evidence has been dropped.
13.It is the main case of the prosecution that the accused has misused the pass of another deceased BMTC Employee/driver in BMTC busses without purchasing the tickets and thereby he has cheated the said Institution.
14.In order to believe the prosecution version first they have to produce the alleged identity card used by the accused by affixing his photograph. Inspite of granting sufficient time the prosecution has not produced the said document. Except PW.1 and 2 no one has stepped into the witness box. Only the PW.1, who is a Conductor has deposed about the case, but he also not produced any documents to show that he was on duty as on the date of alleged incident. PW.2 who is alleged to be Driver of the said bus has turned hostile. So, only based on the evidence of PW.1, the accused could not be convicted.
15.Unless the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused with the evidence of independent, cogent and reliable evidence and also documentary evidence , the version of the prosecution could not be believed. The seizure panchanama is also not proved . The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all 7 reasonable doubt . Therefore the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, my answer to the above point No.1 is in the negative.
16. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offense punishable U/sec.420 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 8th day of February 2023.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Kalase Gowda
2. Narayan.
8
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps:- -NIL -
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 -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
9 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 offense punishable U/sec.420 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
10