Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

The State By P.S.I vs Yogaraj @ Raj S/O Late Gangaiah on 5 April, 2022

 IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
                               Present
                     Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
                                           B.Com. LL.M.
                     VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU

            Dated this the 5th Day of April, 2022

                     C.C. NO.7301/2015

Complainant:
               The State by P.S.I.
               High Grounds Police Station

               (By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)

                           Versus

Accused:
               Yogaraj @ Raj s/o late Gangaiah
               Age 40 years, r/at No.50
               8th Cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli
               Magadi Main Road
               Bengaluru - 560 079

               (By Sri.K.Elangovan, Advocate)

       PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.

  1. Sl. No. of the Case        7301/2015
                                2                        C.C.No.7301/2015




  2. The date of commission        06­06­2014
     of the offence

  3. Name of the complainant       Mohammed Ahmed Khan

  4. Name of the accused           Yogaraj @ Raj

  5. The offence complained of U/s. 379, 420, 465, 466, 471,
     or proved                 473, 201, 120B of IPC

  6. Plea of the accused and       Pleaded not guilty
     his examination

  7. Final Order                   Accused is acquitted

  8. Date of such order            05­04­2022


                          JUDGMENT

The Police Inspector of High Grounds Police Station has filed the final report against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 379, 420, 465, 466, 471, 473, 201, 120B of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06­06­2014 at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., in front of Dominoz Pizza, Cunningham Road, High Grounds, Bengaluru, the two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg.No.KA­02­E­9269 belongs to CW1 was stolen which was parked at Cunningham Road and the accused has changed the number plate as KA­02­EA­1827 and created fraudulent documents in the name of Mohan Kumar and seal of Rajajinagar RTO and committed cheating. Accordingly, CW1 had lodged first information before the High Grounds Police Station. The said police have registered FIR against unknown person U/s. 379 of IPC. After completion of investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against accused for the above said offences.

3. This Court has taken the cognizance. In pursuance of summons the accused appeared and by moving application 4 C.C.No.7301/2015 obtained bail. The prosecution papers furnished to him in compliance of Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. After hearing both side, my predecessor in office has framed the charges, read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined one witness as PW1 and got marked five documents as per Ex.P1 to P5. Inspite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured the remaining witnesses, so the side of the prosecution was taken as closed. As there was no incriminating evidence against the accused so his examination U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed with.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are; 5 C.C.No.7301/2015

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06­06­2014 at 6.30 to 7.00 p.m, in front of Dominos Pizza, Cunningham Road, High Grounds, the PW1 has parked his Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.KA­02­E­9269 Engine No.99D19C06440, Chasis No.99D17M06524 has been stolen by accused and thereby committed the offence u/s 379 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused stolen the above said vehicle and changed the number plate as KA­02­EA­1827 and created fraudulent R.C.Book in the name of Mohan Kumar, and seal of Rajajinagara RTO and cheated with dishonest intention to PW1 and thereby committed the offence u/s 420 of IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused in forged the documents R.C.Book and seal and number plate with intent to cause damage to the PW1 and thereby committed the offence u/s 465 of IPC?

4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused forged the R.C.Book and seal of RTO and number plate which purported to be a record of public office and thereby committed the offence u/s 466 of IPC?

5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date time and place the accused fraudulently used the R.C.Book and seal of RTO and number plate as genuine which he knew to 7 C.C.No.7301/2015 be forged document and thereby committed the offence u/s 471 of IPC?

6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused made a seal and number plate, R.C.Book, for making an impression intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing forgery and thereby committed the offence u/s 473 of IPC?

7. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused gave false information of the offence touching it to screen him and thereby committed the offence u/s 201 of IPC?

8. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused made 8 C.C.No.7301/2015 criminal conspiracy and thereby committed the offence u/s 120(B) of IPC?

9. What order?

7. My findings on the above points are as under:

        Point No.1   :     In the negative
        Point No.2   :     In the negative
        Point No.3   :     In the negative
        Point No.4   :     In the negative
        Point No.5   :     In the negative
        Point No.6   :     In the negative
        Point No.7   :     In the negative
        Point No.8   :     In the negative
        Point No.9   :     As per final order for the following:


                         REASONS

8. Points No.1 to 8:­ In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken all these points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.

9. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the first informant as PW1, he has deposed that he has Hero Honda Splendor Bike bearing Reg. No.KA­02­X­9269, on 06­06­2014 at about 6.00 p.m., he parked his bike near Fortis Hospital, Cunningham Road went to hospital while he came back and found that his bike was stolen. On 08­06­2014 he lodged first information statement before the High Grounds Police as per Ex.P1. Thereafter the police have come to the spot and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 as shown by him. After 2 ½ months of filing of first information statement J.J.Nagar Police have called him to station and showed him vehicle. He identified the vehicle and the said vehicle has different number plate. He has got released his bike at police station through indemnity bond as per Ex.P3. At the time of release of vehicle two photographs has taken as per Ex.P4 and 10 C.C.No.7301/2015 P5. The advocate for accused submits no cross examination to him.

10. Except the evidence of PW1 there is no other oral evidence of prosecution witnesses in this case. PW1 being the first informant in the alleged incident has not at all stated the involvement of the accused in this case. The seizure of the motorcycle from the accused is also not proved by prosecution by examining either witnesses to the mahazar or the IO who has conducted the seizure mahazar.

11. On careful scrutiny of oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, it clearly reveals that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Under such circumstances, there is no material on record to accept the case of the prosecution. So, I answer the above points in the negative. 11 C.C.No.7301/2015

12. Point No.2:­ For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 379, 420, 465, 466, 471, 473, 201, 120B of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437­A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.

(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 5 th day of April 2022.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM Bengaluru 12 C.C.No.7301/2015 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :

PW1 : Mahammad Ahamad Khan s/o Nisar Ahamad Khan Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:

    Ex.P1     :   First Information Statement
    Ex.P1(a) :    Signature of PW1
    Ex.P2     :   Spot Mahazar
    Ex.P2(a) :    Signature of PW1
    Ex.P3     :   Indemnity Bond
    Ex.P4 & 5 :   Two photographs of bike

Witness examined for the defence:

NIL Document marked on behalf of the defence:

NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru 13 C.C.No.7301/2015 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 379, 420, 465, 466, 471, 473, 201, 120B of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437­A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.

VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore