Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Thangaraju @ Raju S/O Perumal on 31 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2018
:PRESENT :
Sri S.K.Vantigodi, B.A., LL.B.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 657 / 2013
COMPLAINANT:- The State of Karnataka,
By Amruth Halli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- Thangaraju @ Raju S/o Perumal
Aged about 26 years
No.111/3, Papanna Hut
(Dharmapuri Jopadi)
6th Cross Road, RBI Colony Main Road
Ganganagara, Bengaluru
Native of Kottayuru grama,
Vennagam taluk, Dharmapuri Dist
Tamilnadu State
(Sri Vinayaka V.S., Advocate for accused)
Date of offence 30.01.2013 at about 11.30 hours;
Date of report of offence 30.01.2013 at about 12.45 hours
Name of the complainant Srinath
2 SC 657/2013
Date of commencement of 12.11.2014
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 20.10.2016
Offence complained of Sec. 397 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by (Sri Vinayaka V.S., Standing
Counsel for accused)
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by Amruth Halli Police against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of IPC alleging that on 30.01.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. accused went to the house of CW1 situated at GKVK Layout, Behind Jakkur Aerodrum, within the limits of Amruthhalli police station and pressed calling bell, when CW2 opened the door and on seeing the knife in the hand of accused, immediately CW2 tried to shut the road, but the accused pushed the door forcibly and as a result CW2 fell back in the house, thereafter, the accused entered into the house and caused stab injury with knife on her right side breast and caused bleeding injury and robbed her gold mangalya chain from her neck worth Rs.1,40,000/- and fled away from the spot and thereby accused committed an offence of robbery punishable under Sec.397 of IPC. 3 SC 657/2013
2. After filing of the charge sheet, Accused is secured from judicial custody. The copy of charge sheet is furnished to Accused. Thereafter, case against accused was committed to Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court u/s 323 of Cr.P.C and the same came to be registered as SC No.657/2013 and made over to this Court for trial.
3. The accused who is judicial custody since the date of arrest, is represented through a standing counsel. The charge against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.397 of IPC has been framed, the contents of the charge for the above said offence read over in the language known to accused and he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all fourteen witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 12 and M.O.1 to 11.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The case of defence is total denial of prosecution case and the defence examined none and no documents are marked.
4 SC 657/2013
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned standing counsel for accused. Perused the records.
7. The only point that arise for my consideration is as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 30.01.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. accused went to the house of CW1 situated at GKVK Layout, Behind Jakkur Aerodrum, within the limits of Amruthhalli police station and pressed calling bell, when CW2 opened the door and on seeing the knife in the hand of accused, immediately CW2 tried to shut the road, but the accused pushed the door forcibly and as a result, CW2 fell back in the house, thereafter, the accused entered into the house and caused stab injury with knife on her right side breast and caused bleeding injury and robbed her gold mangalya chain from her neck worth Rs.1,40,000/- and fled away from the spot and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.397 of IPC?
2) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:-
5 SC 657/2013
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- I have carefully gone through the contents of the charge sheet, evidence of PW1 to 14 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to 12 and other materials placed on record. Prosecution mainly relied upon the direct evidence of PW2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 to prove its case against accused for offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC. As such, I deem it proper to appreciate and evaluate the evidence of these witnesses one by one to answer the point in controversy.
10. PW2 being the injured eye witness has spoken to the facts that on 30.1.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. while she was alone in the house, somebody pressed calling bell, when she opened the door, she saw the accused standing in front of the door holding a knife in his hand and on seeing knife, she tried to close the door. But the accused pushed her and as a result, she fell down on the floor of house and on entering the house, the accused by sitting on her chest threatened her by putting knife near her neck. When she tried to resist the act of accused, she suffered an injury on her 6 SC 657/2013 hands and in the mean time, the knife fell down from the hands of accused and she started shouting for help, for which the accused dashed her head on 2-3 times to the floor and tried to close her mouth by hands and then, accused stabbed on her chest and also tried to close her mouth by putting pillow.
11. In the mean time, CW3 Poornima saw the accused through window and requested the accused to leave her. But the accused snatched her mangalya chain and for which, CW3 started shouting by stating that a thief had entered the house. For which, the accused by opening the door started running away. CW3 who was in front of house, tried to stop him. But the accused by twisting her hands, ran away. In the mean time, CW4 also arrived to the spot and tried to caught hold the accused. But the accused by throwing away the knife in front of the house, fled away.
12. Then she was shifted to Columbia Hospital, where the police came and recorded her statement. She identified the accused before the court as the person who robbed her mangalya chain by causing stab injury with knife. She identified the knife as M.O.1 and her clothes and chappal of accused as M.O.2 to 6 and she also states that M.O.7 is the cut piece of Mangalya chain. 7 SC 657/2013
13. This witness was subjected to cross-examination wherein she states that on the date of incident, her parents in-law and brother-in-law went out of the house. CW3 was staying in the first floor of the said house as a tenant. Several residential houses are located by the left side of her house. Two days after the incident, police came to Hospital. She did not file any complaint before the police. Police had not obtained her signature and not put any special marks on M.O.1 to 7. She denied the suggestion that accused before the court never stabbed and robbed her. A construction work was going on at the left side of her house. She states the mobile numbers of herself and her husband and she denied other suggestions of defence.
14. A careful appreciation of evidence of PW2 coupled with her statement before the police goes to show that her evidence fully corroborates her statement given before the police. Her evidence makes it amply clear that accused before the court entered her house by force and robbed her mangalya chain by causing stab injuries on her chest. The facts narrated by this witness do attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC.
8 SC 657/2013
15. She has specifically identified the accused as the person who entered her house on that day and robbed her mangalya chain by causing stab injury with MO.1 knife. Though this witness was subjected to cross-examination at length by the learned standing counsel, no worth material is elicited from her mouth to disbelieve and discard her evidence.
16. Her evidence is natural, believable, acceptable and inspires the confidence of this court to believe the case of prosecution. Moreover, this witness had no any kind of grudge or enmity with the accused to depose falsity against him. So, the direct evidence of PW2 itself is sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution. Further, there is nothing to disbelieve the facts narrated by PW2. No worth material is elicited from her mouth so as to disbelieve and discard her evidence. Hence, evidence of PW2 corroborates the prosecution papers and helps the prosecution to prove its case against accused for offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC.
17. PW3 who is staying in the first floor of the house of PW2, has spoken to the facts in similar to that of the facts narrated by PW2. It is the evidence of PW3 that on 30.1.2013 at about 9 SC 657/2013 11.30 a.m. while she was in the house, she heard the shouting of PW2. Then she got down from the house and saw PW2 from the window. She saw the accused sitting on the chest of PW2. Then she started crying and knocked the door. For which, the accused opened the door and she tried to stop him, for which, the accused by twisting her arm, started running away from the said place.
18. In the mean time, the neighbours gathered over the place and then accused by throwing the knife, fled away with robbed golden chain. In the mean time, husband of PW2 came to the house and shifted PW2 to hospital.
19. This witness identified the accused as the person who robbed PW2 on that day by holding knife M.O.1. She also identified the accused two days after the incident near the house of PW2.
20. In the cross-examination, she states that she is staying in the first floor of the said house. One Krishna is also staying as tenant in the said building. She denied the suggestion that on that day her husband was also in the house. One Shilpa and Navya who are neighbours, had also arrived to the scene of offence on that day by hearing the hue and cry. She denied all other suggestions of defence.
10 SC 657/2013
21. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW3 who is an eye witness, it can be said that her evidence fully corroborates with the evidence of PW2. Her evidence is consistent to the fact that the accused by causing stab injury to PW2 robbed her Mangalya chain on the date of incident. The facts narrated by PW3 are cogent and corroborative with the facts narrated by PW2. Therefore, the evidence of this witness assists the prosecution to prove its case against accused. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination so as to disbelieve and discard evidence of this witness. Therefore, presence of this witness on the date of incident is natural and believable one. Hence, the evidence of this witness inspires the confidence of this court to believe the case of prosecution.
22. PW4 being another eye witness has spoken to the facts which are also similar to the facts deposed by PW 2 and 3. This witness states that on 30.1.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. while she was in the house, she heard the cry of PW2. Then she saw towards the house of PW2. By that time, PW3 had arrived near the house of PW2. She came to know that a thief had entered house of PW2 for committing robbery. In the mean time, accused before the court, 11 SC 657/2013 came out from the house of PW2 by holding knife and cut piece of Mangalya chain in his hands and went away by pushing PW3. She came to know that PW2 suffered stab injury on her chest.
23. Then somebody informed police. The workers near the house of PW2 had chased the accused. The accused while trying to escape from the spot fell down and suffered injury on the eyebrow. In the mean time, police came and caught hold the accused and took him to station. This witness identified the knife i.e., M.O.1.
24. In the cross-examination, she states that some residential houses are located around the house of PW2. Few tenants are staying in those houses. She denied the suggestion that only after PW2 informed about arrival of thief, she came to know about the incident. She denied all other suggestions of defence.
25. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW4, I am of the view that her evidence is cogent and consistent with that of evidence of PW2 and 3. She has spoken to the facts in similar to that of the facts narrated by PW2 and 3 with regard to the incident. So, the evidence of this witness is natural, believable and 12 SC 657/2013 acceptable one and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve and discard her evidence.
26. PW7 is a circumstantial witness to the incident. This witness has spoken to the facts that on 30.1.2013 at about 11 to 11.30 a.m. she saw the accused before the court running away from the house of PW2 by causing stab injury and snatching mangalya chain. The accused fled away by holding cut piece of mangalya chain in his hands on that day. PW2 was taken to hospital. The neighbours who chased the accused, caught hold him. She identified the photograph of mangalya chain i.e., Ex.P.4 and the knife as M.O.1. She states that accused before the court is the very thief who had robbed PW2 on that day.
27. In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she was not present in the house on the date of incident. She does not remember the colour of clothes worn by accused on that day. She denied all the other suggestions.
28. On perusal of evidence of PW7 it can be said that her evidence who is neighbour of PW2, corroborates the evidence of PW2 to 4 with regard to the occurrence of incident. Therefore, facts narrated by PW7 are cogent and consistent with the facts 13 SC 657/2013 narrated by PW2 to 4. As such, presence of this witness at the time of incident is natural and believable one. Hence, the evidence of this witness supports the case of prosecution to prove its allegations against accused . Nothing is elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
29. PW1 is the complainant and circumstantial witness. This witness being the husband of PW2, has spoken to the facts that on 30.1.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. while he was present near the construction site near his house at GKVK layout, he received call from the mobile phone of his wife. He was informed that a thief by entering into the house caused injury to his wife with a knife and snatched away her mangalya chain. Then himself and his mason Vishwanath rushed to the house, where CW3 to 6 were present near his house and he saw the accused running away from the gate of his house and neighbours were chasing him. On enquiry, he came to know said thief stabbed on the chest of his wife and caused bleeding injury. Then himself and Vishwanath shifted his wife in a bike to Columbia Hospital. The police came near the hospital and recorded his statement /complaint as per Ex.P.1. On the very day police came near the house at about 1.15 p.m. By that 14 SC 657/2013 time, his neighbours who had chased the accused, caught hold and brought him near the house.
30. He handed over the blood stained clothes of his wife to police and pointed out the scene of offence. Then police seized the Mangalya chain, knife, chappals of accused besides the clothes of his wife by drawing mahazar Ex.P.2 and he signed on it. He identified the seized articles as M.O.1 to 7. He states that he got released M.O.7 from the court. He also identified the accused two days after the incident in the police station.
31. In the cross-examination he states that he is working in a private company. He used to work in the night shift. He denied the suggestion that on 30.1.2013 he was in the office. He states the mobile numbers of himself and his wife. He received phone call from the mobile of his wife on that day. The owner of the house called him over mobile phone soon after the incident on that day. He does not know the name of the police officials who wrote Ex.P.1 and 2. He denied all other suggestions. He also states that two houses after his house, construction work was going on. He denied the suggestion that accused was attending said construction work near his house and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 15 SC 657/2013
32. On perusal of evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.1, it can be said that his evidence corroborates with the contents of Ex.P.1 and 2 as well as facts narrated by PW2 to 4 and 7. This witness reached to the place of incident soon after receiving phone call from the mobile of his wife. This witness identified the accused as the person who robbed his wife on the date of incident. So, his evidence is natural and believable one. Nothing is elicited from his mouth to disbelieve and discard his evidence. Hence, the evidence of this witness also supports the prosecution to prove its case against accused.
33. PW5 is witness to Ex.P.2 scene of offence mahazar. This witness has spoken to the fact that on 30.1.2013 at about 1.45 p.m. police came near the house of PW1 for drawing mahazar with regard to the incident of robbery. He was owner of the house wherein PW1 and 2 were staying as tenants. Himself and one Srinath and Purushothama were present when police drew mahazar and seized the knife, chappals of thief and clothes of wife of PW1, blood stains as per M.O.1 to 6 and 8 from the scene of offence.
16 SC 657/2013
34. In the cross-examination he states that he was not present when the incident of robbery had taken place. He came to the scene of offence at about 12.30 p.m. By that time, police had already come to the said place. He was not issued with any notice. He does not know the name of scribe of Ex.P.2. He cannot state the special identification marks found on the seized articles. He denied the suggestion that he signed on the mahazar in the police station. He denied all other suggestions.
35. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.2, it can be said that his evidence establishes the fact that police drew spot mahazar over the place of incident as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of this witness and others. Presence of this witness being the owner of the house which was given on rent to PW1 at the time of drawing mahazar, is natural and believable one. So, the evidence of this witness supports the case of the prosecution to prove the drawing of mahazar and seizure of M.O.1 to 6 and 8 in the presence of this witness. Hence the prosecution by relying on the evidence of PW5, has proved Ex.P.2.
36. PW6 is witness to seizure mahazar i.e., Ex.P.3. This witness has spoken to the facts that on 30.1.2013, police had 17 SC 657/2013 called him to the station where the accused before the court was present. The police opened the bag sent by the Yelahanka General Hospital, wherein the clothes pertaining to accused and a mangalya chain were kept. The police prepared mahazar as per Ex.P.3 from 3 p.m to 4 p.m. and seized clothes of accused i.e., as per M.O.8 to 11. This witness also identified the photograph of broken mangalya chain as per Ex.P.4.
37. In the cross-examination, he states that he attends his work from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. He does not remember the names of others who were present on that day. Police read over the contents of mahazar and he signed on that day. He does not know the person who dictated the contents of mahazar. No special identification marks were put on M.O.8 to 11 by the police. He denied the other suggestions.
38. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW6 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.3 it can be said that his evidence is sufficient to believe that the police drew mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and seized the bag containing clothes of accused as per M.O.8 to 11. So his evidence is sufficient to prove the seizure of clothes as well as cut piece of mangalya chain from the possession of accused as 18 SC 657/2013 per Ex.P.3. Hence, the prosecution has proved the drawing of Ex.P.3 relying on the evidence of PW6.
39. PW8 is another independent witness who has spoken to the fact that on 30.1.2013 at about 11.30 a.m, himself and one Girish were attending the construction work i.e., putting up of mould and centering sheets. At that point of time, he heard the cry of women that a thief had entered the house. He saw that a person was found running away from the gate of house. Himself and Girish chased the said person who after 30 to 40 ft., fell down on the ground and suffered injury. Himself and others caught hold him and then police came to the spot and arrested said person i.e., accused before the court. He came to know that the accused by entering into the house of PW2, robbed her mangalya chain causing stab injury. He identified the accused as the person who was caught hold on that day, while he was running away from the house of PW2.
40. In the cross-examination he states that he cannot remember the colour of clothes worn by accused on that day. He is working under one Muniraju as construction worker. He supervised several construction works at GKVK. He does not remember the 19 SC 657/2013 door number of house of PW2 and others at GKVK. He did not observe as to whether the accused was holding cut piece of mangalya chain on that day. He denied the other suggestions.
41. On perusal of evidence of PW8 it can be said that his evidence establishes the fact that the accused after committing robbery by causing stab injuries, was running away and he was caught hold by the neighbours on the spot. So, the evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of other witnesses and helps case of the prosecution to prove its allegations against the accused.
42. PW9 being a police constable has spoken to the facts that on 30.1.2013 at about 11.45 a.m. while he was on day patrolling duty along with PSI, he received information that a person having inflicted an injury to a lady with a knife, was running away at GKVK Layout. Then he rushed to the said place, where he found that accused fell down and suffered injuries and on enquiry with the public, he came to know that the accused by stabbing a lady in the house robbed her mangalya chain. Then the Police Inspector came to the spot and shifted the injured accused to Hospital. The Doctor who treated the accused handed over the 20 SC 657/2013 mangalya gold chain to the police which was in the possession of accused. Said Mangalya chain was cut into two pieces. Ex.P.4 is the photograph of said Mangalya chain. The Doctor handed over the said mangalya chain and clothes to the police. The Police Inspector seized the said mangalya chain and clothes of accused by drawing mahazar. He identified his report as per Ex.P.5 and clothes of accused as per M.O.8 to 11. He denied other suggestions of accused in the cross-examination.
43. A perusal of evidence of this witness, establishes the fact that the accused was caught hold red handed while committing robbery in the house of PW2 by causing stab injury. It reflects from his evidence that the accused fell down while escaping the hands of public and he was caught hold and handed over to police. So, the evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of PW2 to 4, 7 and 8 to believe the case of prosecution.
44. PW10 being the Medical Officer of General Hospital, Yelahanka, has spoken to the facts that on 30.01.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. accused was brought by police constable with history of assault by public and on examination, he found a lacerated wound on the right forehead of accused and he issued medical certificate 21 SC 657/2013 as per Ex.P.6. The clothes worn by accused were blood stained. He handed over the clothes and the mangalya chain which were in the possession of accused to the police.
45. In the cross-examination he states that he has not mentioned the time in Ex.P.6 with regard to examination of accused. The case was initially registered as medico legal case. He denied the other suggestions.
46. A perusal of the evidence of this witness makes it amply clear that the accused suffered an injury while running away from the scene of offence and was taken to hospital, where this witness found the gold chain in the possession of accused and accordingly, he handed over the clothes and gold chain to the police. So, the evidence of this witness is acceptable and believable one.
47. PW11 being the Medical Practitioner of Columbia Hospital, has spoken to the facts that on 30.01.2013 at about 11.50 a.m, She examined PW2 who was brought by her husband to hospital with history of stab injury. She found stab injury on right breast of PW2. There were two injuries on right side of the breast. There were few superficial minor injuries on both the hands and 22 SC 657/2013 lower lip and left side of the neck of PW2. Then the patient was shifted to ICU for further treatment. She gave intimation to Amruthhalli police station as it was MLC case as per Ex.P.7. After the patient was admitted to ICU, the patient was examined by some other Doctors. In the cross-examination, she states that she had not mentioned about weapons used for causing such injury in Ex.P.7. She denied other suggestions.
48. On perusal of evidence of PW11 it can be said that the medical evidence corroborates with the evidence of injured witness i.e., PW2. It is clear from the evidence of this witness that PW2 suffered stab injury on right side chest at the time of incident. So, the evidence of this witness also supports the case of prosecution to prove its allegations against the accused.
49. PW12 is another Medical Officer of Columbia Asia Hospital. This witness deposed that on 17.4.2013 on the request of Amruthhalli police, he examined a knife and gave his report to that effect. He states that the said weapon was single edged metallic knife. The injury No.1 and 2 as shown in wound certificate could be caused by the use of such type of weapon and he issued report as per Ex.P.8. M.O.1 is the very weapon which was examined by 23 SC 657/2013 him. In the cross-examination he states that he has not mentioned about the details of documents, furnished by police in his report. He denied the other suggestions.
50. On perusal of evidence of PW12, it can be said that his evidence establishes the fact that the injuries suffered by PW2 were caused by the use of M.O.1. So, medical evidence corroborates the evidence of the injured witness. Hence, the evidence of this witness also helps the case of prosecution to prove its case against the accused.
51. PW13 is the Investigating Officer who has spoken regarding registration of crime on the basis of complaint lodged by PW1; drawing of mahazar over scene of offence as per Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.O.1 to 6; recording of statement of CW3 to 19 and 21; seizure of blood stained clothes of accused and cut pieces of Mangalya chain by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and recording of statement of CW2 and 20 and supplementary statement of CW1, 3 to 6, 11 to 17 and 19 and 22 and CW2 for having identified the accused, then obtained wound certificate and FSL report as per Ex.P.10, obtained report regarding examination of weapon, 24 SC 657/2013 recording of voluntary statement of accused. This witness identified the FIR as per Ex.P.11.
52. In the cross-examination he states that soon after he received wireless message, he went to hospital and collected MLC report. He has not produced the MLC records before this court. He states that he has not collected any records to show that the accused has involved in other cases. He denied the suggestion of learned standing Counsel for accused that accused has been falsely implicated in this case as real culprit could not be traced out.
53. On perusal of evidence of PW13, it can be said that his evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW1 to 12. His evidence makes it clear that the robbed Mangalya chain along with clothes of accused have been seized from the possession of accused by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.3. His evidence also makes it clear that the injuries suffered by PW2 were caused by the use of MO.1 which was seized at the spot. Further, no worth material is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve and discard the evidence of this witness. As such, this witness withstood the test of cross examination. 25 SC 657/2013
54. PW14 is another Medical Officer of Columbia Hospital. He has spoken to the facts that himself and casualty Medical Officer examined PW2 at about 11.30 a.m. with a history of assault, who suffered stab injury and multiple superficial lacerations and then he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.12. The injuries shown in Ex.P.12 could be caused by the use of knife. In the cross- examination he admits that police normally submit written requisition for furnishing wound certificate. Police had not submitted any requisition to give his opinion about the weapon used for committing the offence. He has not mentioned use of weapon in Ex.P.12. He denied the other suggestions.
55. On careful examination of evidence of PW14, it can be said that the injured PW2 suffered such stab injury by the use of M.O.1. So, evidence of this medical officer corroborates the evidence of injured witness. As such, it can be safely concluded that the accused by using M.O.1 caused such stab injury to PW2 while committing robbery.
56. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW1 to 14, I am of the view that the prosecution relying on the direct evidence of PW2 to 4, PW7 and 8, has successfully proved beyond all 26 SC 657/2013 reasonable doubt that the accused by causing grievous injuries to PW2, committed robbery of Mangalya chain. The evidence of thes material witnesses is cogent, consistent and corroborative to each other to believe the case of prosecution. Herein this case, it is pertinent to note that the accused was caught red handed near the scene of offence, while he was fleeing away after committing robbery in the house by causing stab injuries to PW2. Further, PW2 to 4, 7 and 8 saw the accused causing stab injury and running away from the house of PW2 after committing robbery of Mangalya chain. So, the very presence of PW3,4, 7 and 8 near the scene of offence is natural and they are none else than the residents of the houses in and around the scene of offence wherein PW 2 was staying. So, their evidence is believable, acceptable one and inspires the confidence of this court to believe the case of prosecution.
57. Further, the theory of defence that accused was a construction worker in the said locality and was falsely implicated in this case, is not probable and believable one. Because, PW 3, 4, 7 and 8 who are no way related to each other nor with PW2, had personally seen the accused robbing PW2 of her Mangalya chain 27 SC 657/2013 by causing stab injury which is in greivious in nature with knife. Such being the case, their evidence cannot be disbelieved on any count. Therefore, the theory of defence set up by the accused is highly unacceptable and not believable one. Moreover, the defence has failed to elicit any such facts in the cross-examination of these material witnesses to disbelieve and discard their evidence. Further, PW2 to 4, 7 and 8 are independent witnesses, who have no enmity or grudge against the accused to depose falsity against the accused. Furthermore, such offence of robbery is committed by the accused in broad day light under the guise of knocking the door of the house, wherein PW2 was alone present and it shows that the accused made all the preparations to commit the offence of robbery by holding a knife.
58. Furthermore, when PW2 being the injured victim has specifically identified the accused as the person who had forcibly entered her house and robbed her Mangalya chain by stabbing on the chest with a knife, what more is required to believe the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the direct evidence of PW3, PW4, 7 and 8 who have also witnessed the accused running away after robbing PW2 by causing 28 SC 657/2013 stab injuries on her chest with knife. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 to 4, 7 and 8 itself is sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution and also the guilt of the accused. As such, absolutely there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 to 4, 7 and 8, whose evidence is corroborated by the evidence of seizure mahazar witness and the investigating officer who have spoken to the facts that M.O.7 i.e., cut pieces of mangalya chain belonging to PW2 has been recovered from the possession of accused. Therefore, the materials placed on record by prosecution clearly indicate that the accused by using deadly weapon i.e., knife caused grevious hurt to PW2 at the time of committing robbery. Therefore, the facts narrated by material witness i.e., PW2 to 4, 7 and 8, clearly attract the essential ingredients of offence punishable with under Sec.397 of IPC.
59. Further, PW9 police constable soon after receiving wireless message appeared near the scene of offence and apprehended the accused, who was caught red handed by neighbours. Such being the situation, when the accused was caught red handed and has been identified by PW1 to 4, 7 and 8, there is no need to conduct test identification parade. As such the 29 SC 657/2013 arguments advanced by the learned standing counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated, has no any basis and is not believable one. When the eye witnesses including the victim have identified the accused as the person who robbed PW2 by causing grievous injury with the help of knife, then question of conducting test identification parade does not arise. The thing would have been different if the accused were to be arrested few days after the occurrence of incident. But herein this case, the accused was apprehended soon after the incident while he was running away after committing robbery. So, question of conducting test identification parade does not arise. As such, there are no latches in the investigation conducted by PW13.
60. Hence, having carefully appreciated entire materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution relying on the evidence of PW1 to 14 and contents of Ex.P.1 to 12, has successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC. As such the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 397 and is liable to be convicted and accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Affirmative. 30 SC 657/2013
61. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused is found guilty and acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., he is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 397 of IPC.
The judgment is deferred for hearing on sentence.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of January, 2018) (S.K.VANTIGODI) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as accused and the learned standing counsel, on sentence. Accused submits that he is young and he is the sole earning member in the family and he is first offender and hence leniency may be shown in imposing punishment on them. The learned standing counsel for accused submits that since accused is first offender and has no 31 SC 657/2013 other antecedents, leniency may be shown in imposing sentence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the offence committed by accused is heinous and anti social one and hence, prayed to impose maximum punishment on accused.
On hearing both sides on the point of sentence, I have gone through the entire materials placed on record. It is noticed that accused is young and he is first offender. There are no bad antecedents against them. Therefore, considering all these facts, nature of offence committed by the accused, age and back ground of accused and other mitigating circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence under Sec.397 of Indian Penal Code.
The period in which the accused was in judicial custody, if any, shall be given set off.
Seized M.O.1 to 6, 8 to 11 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.32 SC 657/2013
The release of seized gold mangalya chain i.e M.O.7 in favour of PW2 is made absolute.
Supply free copy of judgment to accused.
Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation by the Judgment writer, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of January, 2018) (S.K.VANTIGODI) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Srinath PW2 Smt.Sumithra PW3 Smt.Poornima PW4 Shilpa.r. PW5 Mallesh T.R. PW6 Papanna.N. PW7 Navyakrishna PW8 N.Nagesh PW9 Babu S.R. PW10 Dr.Ramachandra PW11 Dr.Seema PW12 Dr.R.Shashikanth PW13 S.Panduranga Pw14 Dr.Srihamsa.H.N.
List of witnesses examined for the defence: Nil 33 SC 657/2013 List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Statement of PW1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Photo of piece of mangalya
chain
Ex.P.5 Report of Pw9
Ex.P.6 Wc
Ex.P.7 Medical legal case intimation
Ex.P.8 Certificate
Ex.P.9 Report
Ex.P.10 Certificate
Ex.P.11 FIR
Ex.P.12 Wound certificate
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 Knife
M.O.2 Nighty
M.O.3 Petty coat
M.O.4 Veil
M.O.5 Chappal
M.O.6 Bra
M.O.7 Chain
M.O.8 Banian
M.O.9 Pant
M.O.10 Shirt
M.O.11 underwear
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.