Bangalore District Court
Owner Of Recovered Articles And ... vs By Name Rajashekar @ Krishna Along With ... on 30 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 30th day of January 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.,
1. C.C.No 23698/2012
2. Date of Offence 4-6-2012
3. Complainant State by R.M.C. Yard Police Station
4. Accused Krishna @ Rajashekar
s/o. Venkataramana, 22yrs,
1st Main Road, 5th Cross,
N.T.T.F Hostel, Nelagadaranahalli,
Nagasandra (Po) Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC
of
6. Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order Accused is Acquitted
8. Date of Order 30-1-2015
- --
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, R.M.C.Yard Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.23698/2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
4/6/12 during night hours, within the limits of RMC Yard
Police Station, the accused person committed lurking house
trespass, by night by entering into the building belonging to
CW 1-Satyendra situated at No.151/A, 3rd cross, 5th main,
Yeshwanthapura Industrial range namely Primetech Pvt., Ltd.,
after the hour of sunset & before the hour of sunrise, in order
to the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment
and committed theft of one Toshiba laptop, HP monitor,
Usonic monitor, 2 CPU belonging to CW 1, and thereby
committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is in JC. On receipt of chargesheet this
court took cognizance of the offences and furnished the copies
of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charges, this court framed the charge for the offences
punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC and questioned the
accused regarding the charge made against him, he denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
has examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked 10
documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Since CW 2 to 4, 8 to 11 did
not turn up before this court hence, by rejecting the prayer of
Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
3 C.C.No.23698/2012
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
has examined six witnesses. P.W.1 Sathyendra G.N. is the
complainant, owner of recovered articles and circumstantial
witness. P.W.2 M.K.Rajashekaraiah is the Investigating Officer
who conducted partial investigation. P.W.3 Kumar is the spot
mahazar witness. P.W.4 Umeshkumar is another spot
mahazar witness. P.W.5 Kumar H. is the Police Constable
who said to have arrested the accused on suspicious grounds.
P.W.6 B.Vijayakumar is another Investigating Officer. In spite
of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has not
examined the other witnesses on record.
8. The testimony of P.W.1 Sathyendra G.N. indicating
that on 5-6-2012 when he visited his factory situated at
Peenya was informed by his staff regarding the theft of one
laptop, two CPU and two monitors on 4-6-2012. He asked his
factory workers to lodge the complaint to the police and
returned to his personal work. On 19-6-2012 he returned to
the factory and came to know that no complaint was lodged.
4 C.C.No.23698/2012
Accordingly, on the same day he lodged the complaint to the
police. After lodging of the complaint, the police visited the
spot and prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P1. The testimony of
P.W.1 in the matter of preparing of spot mahazar is
corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 4. Their testimony indicating
that, on 19-6-2012 the RMC Yard Police visited their factory
regarding the theft of laptop, monitor, CPU and prepared the
spot mahazar.
9. Further the testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by
P.W.2 M.K.Rajashekaraiah the Investigating Officer. His
testimony indicating that on 19-6-2012 at 1 p.m., P.W.1
lodged the complaint regarding the theft of laptop and other
articles in his factory. Accordingly, he registered the case. On
the same day he visited the spot prepared the mahazar in the
presence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Though P.Ws.1 to 4 were subjected
to cross-examination but nothing worth is elicited from them.
It is to be noted here that the accused is not disputing the
ownership of P.W.1 over recovered laptop, CPU and monitor.
Therefore, the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 in the matter of theft,
lodging of the complaint, registering of the case, preparing of
the spot mahazar is only formal one and need not required
detailed consideration.
10. The testimony of P.W.2 further indicating that on 28-
6-2012 C.W.10 Head Constable of Rajagopalanagar Police
5 C.C.No.23698/2012
Station visited the Police Station and handed over the records
and seized articles. Accordingly, he reported the seized articles
to the court under P.F.No.69/2012. Thereafter, as per the
direction of the court he handed over the seized articles to
P.W.1. On 22-9-2012 he completed the investigation and filed
charge sheet against the accused. As per the say of P.W.2 the
stolen articles pertaining to this case is recovered by
Rajagopalanagar Police Station. Therefore, the prosecution
has to prove the seizure of stolen articles by way of proving the
seizure mahazar prepared by Rajagopalanagar Police Station
as per Ex.P9.
11. In a case like this, the offences have to be proved in a
circumstantial evidence by way of proving the seizure mahazar
of seized stolen articles pertaining to this case as per Ex.P9.
As per the case of the prosecution, C.Ws.2 to 4 are the
independent seizure mahazar witnesses and C.W.13 is the
Investigating officer who recovered the stolen articles
pertaining to this case by way of preparing seizure mahazar at
Ex.P9. It appears in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the
prosecution has not examined C.Ws.2 to 4. However, the
prosecution has examined C.W.13 the investigating Officer as
P.W.6.
12. Now let us consider, whether the prosecution has
established seizure mahazar by relying upon the sole
6 C.C.No.23698/2012
testimony of P.W.6. The testimony of P.W.6 indicating that, on
11-6-2012 C.W.8 Prasanna Kumar Police Constable and
C.W.9 Jayaramsetty Head Constable have produced the
accused by name Rajashekar @ Krishna along with computer
and its spare parts. He received the report from C.Ws.8 and 9
and his PSI registered the case under Crime No.384/2012. He
enquired the said accused in Crime No.229/2011 of his Police
Station and recorded his voluntary statement. In the
voluntary statement, the accused has disclosed that if he is
taken to his house he will show and produce the computer,
laptop and CPU, stolen within the limits of RMC Yard Police
Station. Accordingly, he called two persons as panchas to the
police station, thereafter he along with panchas and his staff
visited the house of accused. The accused showed the said
articles and seized the same by preparing the seizure mahazar
and reported seized articles to the court under
P.F.No.145/2012. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of
C.Ws.2 to 5 the seizure mahazar witnesses and 7 to 9 his
police staff. On 21-6-2012 he transferred the case papers and
seized articles to the RMC Yard Police Station on the basis of
jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at the request of learned
Sr.APP the further examination of P.W.6 was dropped. But
unfortunately the said P.W.6 has not tendered for further
examination. As per well settled law if any witness gives his
part of evidence and if for any reason the examination of said
witness deferred, and subsequently, the said witness did not
7 C.C.No.23698/2012
turn up before the court, the evidence of said witness cannot
be looked into. In the instant case though PW.6 has given his
part of evidence, but subsequently, he has not tendered for
further examination. As such the testimony of PW.6 cannot be
looked into.
13. As stated above in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined the
independent seizure mahazar witnesses. Though the
prosecution to prove the seizure mahazar has examined PW.6,
in view of my above discussion, the evidence of PW.6 cannot
be looked into. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the seizure.
14. It appears, though PW.1 to 5 have supported the case
of the prosecution, their evidence is not sufficient to hold that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, having regards to the facts & circumstances
of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
Hence I proceed to pass the following:
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER
Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused person is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC .
8 C.C.No.23698/2012Office to issue direction to the jail authority to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
Further office to send back the entire record of CC No.18184/12 to the VIIth ACMM Court forthwith as the said record called to this court for reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 Sathyendra.N PW2 M.K. Rajashekaraiah PW 3 Kumar PW 4 Umeshkumar PW 5 Kumar.H PW 6 B.Vijaykumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature PW1
Ex.P.3 FIR
Ex.P.3(a) Signature
Ex.P.4 Indemnity bond
Ex.P.5 Photograph
Ex.P.6 Statement
Ex.P.7 Report
9 C.C.No.23698/2012
Ex.P.8 FIR
Ex.P.9 Statement
Ex.P.9(a) Signature
Ex.P.10 Photograph
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS and MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.