Bangalore District Court
Hulimavu Ps vs A2 Naveen Alias Loli on 22 May, 2025
KABC010229992022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2025
S.C.No.1564/2022
Complainant: State by Hulimavu
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused: 2. Naveen @ Loli,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Shambhulingeshwara
Temple road, Hulimavu grama,
B.G. Road, Bengaluru.
3. Koushik @ Koushi .... Split up
5. Raju,
S/o Gopalappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.109, Kembathahalli Grama,
Gottigere, Bannerughatta road,
Bengaluru.
(By - Sri. DSM., Adv.)
Date of offences: 14.02.2016
2 S.C.No.1564/2022
Date of report of 14.02.2016
offences:
Name of complainant: B.K Nageshaiah, PSI
Date of recording of 14.03.2024
evidence:
Date of closing of 08.11.2024
evidence:
Offence complained of: U/s.399 and 402 of IPC
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by the Police Inspector, Hebbal Police station against accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case:
On 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 pm while the complainant B.K.Nageshaiah was discharging the duty he received the credible information that near the lake beside Krishna Layout, Chikkammanahalli, B.G.Road about 6-7 persons by parking the Tata indica car and holding with deadly weapons are making preparation to commit dacoity to the valuables of the passerby. The complainant summoned the police officials and rushed near the alleged place of offence and after confirming the information received that the persons are trying to commit the alleged offence. The complainant and his staff surrounded the persons and apprehended two persons and other five persons ran away from the spot. The complainant has seized the weapons in their possession the long dragger and button knife by drawing the mahazar. The complainant has seized the weapon and tata indica car bearing No.KA-05-D-9342 in presence of panchas. On enquiry the said persons revealed that they in order to commit dacoity 3 S.C.No.1564/2022 they had assembled there. The complainant thereafter along with the accused persons and seized articles produced before the IO along with the report and panchanamma. On receipt of complaint, the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.102/2016 for the offence punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, the complainant Police have submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 by showing accused No.4 and accused No.7 as absconding accused before the ACMM, Bengaluru. Since the accused No.1 died, accused No.4, 6 and 7 were not secured, the trial Court registered split up case against accused No.4,6 and 7. After securing the presence of accused No.2, 3 and 5, the trial Court has committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the case has been made over to this Court for disposal. As the presence of accused No.3 could not be secured, this split-up case S.C.No.1940/2023 has been registered against him. Before this Court, the accused No.3 remained absent and as such, case against accused No.3 is split up. By securing the presence of accused No.2 and 5, this Court has framed the charge for the offences punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC against them and they pleaded not guilty and hence the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution in support of their case has totally cited 10 witnesses as C.Ws.1 to 17. The prosecution was able to secure and examine 5 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 7 and got marked M.Os.1 to 3. The witnesses- C.Ws.1, 16, 13, 10 and 17 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 respectively. In spite of issuance of proclamation against C.Ws.2 to 9, they are not secured and hence, their evidence is dropped. The prosecution has given up the evidence 4 S.C.No.1564/2022 of C.Ws.11, 12, 14 and 15. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused No.1 and 5 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, were recorded. They have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them which was read over and explained to them and they did not choose to lead any defense evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my consideration in both cases are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 p.m, within the jurisdiction of complainant Police station, near the lake beside Krishna Layout, Chikkammanahalli, B.G.Road about 6-7 persons by parking the Tata indica car and holding with deadly weapons and preparing to commit dacoity on passerby and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.399 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 to 7 were assembled with intention to commit dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.402 of IPC?
3. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are:
Points No.1 & 2: In the negative,
Point No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7. Points No.1 & 2: These points are taken together for discussion as they are interconnected to each other.
5 S.C.No.1564/2022The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 pm while the complainant B.K.Nageshaiah was discharging the duty he received the credible information that near the lake beside Krishna Layout, Chikkammanahalli, B.G.Road about 6-7 persons by parking the Tata indica car and hoolding with deadly weapons are making preparation to commit dacoity to the valuables f the passerby. The complainant summoned the police officials and rushed near the alleged place of offence and after confirming the information received that the persons are trying to commit the alleged offence. The complainant and his staff surrounded the persons and apprehended two persons and other five persons ran away from the spot. The complainant has seized the weapons in their possession the long dragger and button knife by drawing the mahazar. The complainant has seized the weapon and tata indica car bearing No.KA-05-D-9342 in presence of panchas. On enquiry the said persons revealed that they in order to commit dacoity they had assembled there. The complainant thereafter along with the accused persons produced seized articles before the IO along with the report and panchanamma
8. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 7 and got marked M.Os.1 to 3. According to prosecution, C.W.1/ PW1- B.K.Nageshaiah was the Complainant, C.W.16-Pw2 Jadadish Patil was the HC, Cw-13/PW3-Shivkumar was the ASI, CW10/PW4-P.K.Mohan was ASI and C.W.17/PW5- Chandrappa .S.M was the Police Sub Inspector they are examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 respectively.
6 S.C.No.1564/20229. P.W.1- B.K.Nageshaiah being the then PSI of complainant Police station has deposed that on 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 pm while the complainant B.K.Nageshaiah was discharging the duty he received the credible information that near the lake beside Krishna Layout, Chikkammanahalli, B.G.Road about 6-7 persons by parking the Tata indica car and holding with deadly weapons are making preparation to commit dacoity to the valuables of the passerby. The complainant summoned the police officials and rushed near the alleged place of offence and after confirming the information received that the persons are trying to commit the alleged offence. PW1 has further deposed that he and his staff surrounded the persons and apprehended two persons and other five persons ran away from the spot. The complainant has seized the weapons in their possession the long dragger and button knife by drawing the mahazar. The complainant has seized the weapon and tata indica car bearing No.KA-05-D-9342 in presence of panchas and conducted the mahazar at Ex.P.1 and thereafter, he came to the Police station along with accused and submitted his report/ complaint at Ex.P.2. He has identified the material objects MO1 and MO2 seized in the case and he has also identified the accused No.1 and 5 before the Court.
10. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the learned advocate for accused, wherein P.W.1 has stated that he was on beat duty when he received the information and from there he came to the station and intimated the same to his staff. PW1 has admitted that he has not mention the said information in the SHD. PW1 has admitted that he went to the spot in private car along with 10 members and he does not know the number of the private vehicle. PW1 has also admitted that in 7 S.C.No.1564/2022 the complaint he has not stated he has used government vehicle and private vehicle and not mentioned its number. PW1 has admitted that the place of incident is 3 km away from the station. He has specifically denied the other suggestions made with respect to denying his part of duty performed in this case. The learned counsel for accused has suggested that the Police have registered false case only for statistical purpose and they have created M.Os.1 and 2 for this case and the P.W.1 has denied those suggestions.
11. PW2 - Jagadish Patil has been examined wherein he has led the evidence deposing that on 23.02.2016 he and CW12 were deputed by CW1 to apprehend accused Koushik and with respect to the same they have arrested the said accused at 3.30 pm., near Jambhosavari Denne and produced before CW1. The learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined the said witness as the trial with respect to the said accused was split up.
12. P.W.3- Shiva Kumar was the Police constable of complainant Police station, His evidence corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of raiding of accused on the alleged date of offence and at the spot. He has also deposed that he and C.W.1 have arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and they were in possession of long, dragger and button knife were caught hold by CW1 and his staff and other accused persons were ranned away from the spot. The P.W.4 has also deposed that the PW1 has also seized material object and indica car by drawing mahazar in the presence of panchas and produced them before C.W.10. He has deposed that he identified the weapons seized in the case, which are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. He has also identified the accused No.2 present before the Court. The said PW4 has been 8 S.C.No.1564/2022 treated as partly hostile and Learned PP has cross examined the PW4. Wherein PW4 has admitted the suggestion that CW1, 11, 12 and 15 had caught hold of Nagaraj and one dragger was with him and also further admitted the suggestion that when they enquired about the accused who ranned away the accused have stated the name of the accused who ranned away as Koushik, Raja, Bonda Manju and Abhi. PW4 has also admitted the suggestion that the panchanama was conducted from 6.15 to 7.15, PW4 has also admitted the suggestion that the said accused No.3 and 5 have ranned away from the spot and has identified the accused No.5. During his cross-examination, the PW4 has admitted that he has stated in his statement with respect to the private vehicle and its number, PW4 has admitted that when they reached the spot it was dark and there were no street lights, PW4 has admitted that when they reached the spot it was 5.30 to 6.00 pm., and also further contended that when they left the station they had not taken any articles. The learned counsel for accused has put denial suggestions to P.W.1 by denying his part of duty done in this case and he has denied those suggestions.
13. P.W.4- P.K Mohan is the then HC of complainant Police station. His evidence corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of raiding of accused on the alleged date of offence and at the spot. He has also deposed that he and C.W.1 have arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and they were in possession of long, dragger and button knife were caught hold by CW1 and his staff and other accused persons were ranned away from the spot. The P.W.4 has also deposed that the PW1 has also seized material object and indica car by drawing mahazar in the presence of panchas and produced them before 9 S.C.No.1564/2022 C.W.10. He has deposed that he identified the weapons seized in the case, which are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. He has also identified the accused No.2 present before the Court. The said PW4 has been treated as partly hostile and Learned PP has cross examined the PW4. Wherein PW4 has admitted the suggestion that CW1, 11, 12 and 15 had caught hold of Nagaraj and one dragger was with him and also further admitted the suggestion that when they enquired about the accused who ranned away the accused have stated the name of the accused who ranned away as Koushik, Raja, Bonda Manju and Abhi. PW4 has also admitted the suggestion that the panchanama was conducted from 6.15 to 7.15, PW4 has also admitted the suggestion that the said accused No.3 and 5 have ranned away from the spot and has identified the accused No.5. During his cross-examination, the PW4 has admitted that he has stated in his statement with respect to the private vehicle and its number, PW4 has admitted that when they reached the spot it was dark and there were no street lights, PW4 has admitted that when they reached the spot it was 6.15 pm., and also further contended that when they left the station they had not taken any articles. The learned counsel for accused has put denial suggestions to P.W.1 by denying his part of duty done in this case and he has denied those suggestions.
14. P.W.5- Chandrappa S.N, was the PSI of complainant Police station and he has deposed that on 14.02.2016 at about 7.45 pm., when he was in the station as SHO CW1 has produced accused persons, seized articles and complaint and he has registered the case based on the complaint at Ex.P.2 and prepared FIR at Ex.P.5. P.W.5 has further stated that C.W.1 has produced seizure mahazar, seized 10 S.C.No.1564/2022 materials along with Ex.P.2 and he has subjected the articles in PF and he has further deposed that he has recorded the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2 and also statements of C.Ws.8 to 13 and has identified accused No.2 and 5 before the court. The PW5 has further deposed that the accused No.5 Raju has been produced before him and he has arrested and recorded voluntary statement and on the information of accused No.5 he has seized MO3 in the presence of panchas CW6 and CW7 and the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.6 and the said seized article is subjected to PF No.51/2016. PW5 has further deposed that he has also recorded the statement of CW6 and CW7 and had deputed staff to arrest absconding accused Raghu and Abhi as the said accused persons were not traced and the investigating having completed has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. The said witness having been treated partly hostile has been cross examined by the Learned PP. Wherein the PW5 has admitted that he has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused No.5 and on the information provided by the accused No.5 as per Ex.P.7. During his cross-examination, the learned counsel for accused has suggested P.W.5 by denying his part of duty done in this case and P.W.5 has denied those suggestions and also denied the suggestion that though he has not received any complaint from C.W.1. PW5 has admitted that he has seen the articles when produced along with complaint by CW1. PW5 has admitted that he does not know which staff had arrested accused No.3 and which article has been seized from accused No.3. PW5 has denied the suggestion that he has filed false case and charge sheet against the accused and he is deposing false evidence.
11 S.C.No.1564/202215. On perusal of records, it is noticed that the prosecution in order to prove its case, has totally examined four witnesses- P.Ws.1 to 5. Even though the sufficient opportunity was given, the prosecution is unable to secure the material/ independent witnesses i.e mahazar witnesses C.Ws.2 to 9. In spite of issuance of proclamation against C.Ws.2 to 9, they are not secured and hence, their evidence is dropped. The prosecution has given up the evidence of C.Ws.11, 12, 14 and 15.
16. It is the specific case of prosecution that complainant- P.W.1- IO had received credible information that the accused persons had assembled at the spot with deadly weapons like knives etc., with an intention to commit dacoity and they were making preparation to commit dacoity. P.W.1 has specifically stated that upon receipt of credible information, he summoned two independent panch witnesses i.e. C.Ws.2 and 3 and requested them to be panchas. Thereafter they proceeded to the spot along with panchas and his staff and after confirming the information, they surrounded the accused and apprehended accused No.1 and 2 and other accused managed to escape from the spot. They recovered the deadly weapons which were in the possession of said accused in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3 and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.1. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the material objects were seized from the accused persons at the scene of offence by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.1 and were making preparation to commit dacoity. In order to prove these offences, evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.5 has to be fully corroborated by the evidence of independent mahazar witnesses i.e. C.W.2 and C.W.3.
12 S.C.No.1564/202217. The entire prosecution case rests on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4, who were the members of the raiding party. The evidence of the complainant -P.W.1, who was Police Sub Inspector of complainant Police station is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and 4, who had assisted P.W.1 in raiding and nabbing of accused persons. The evidence of P.W.5 is also supported by the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of lodging of complaint against the accused persons based the complaint at Ex.P.2 given by P.W.1. The remaining evidence is of P.W.2, who has deposed about apprehending of the accused Koushik. It is pertinent to be noted herein that even though sufficient opportunity was given to secure C.Ws.2 to 9, the prosecution was unable to secure them.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1 (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra), enumerated conditions for valid panchanama. It is held that panchanama is a document having legal bearings which records evidence and findings that an officer makes at the scene of an offence. However, it is not only the recordings of the scene of crime but also of anywhere else which may be related to the crime/offence and from where incriminating evidence is likely to be collected. The documents so prepared needs to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares the same and at least by two independent and impartial witnesses called 'panchas' as also by the concerned party. The witnesses are required to be not only impartial but also 'respectable'. Respectable here would mean a person who is not dis-reputed. One should also check if the witnesses are in their senses at the time of panchanama proceedings. The primary intention behind the 13 S.C.No.1564/2022 panchanama is to guard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers entrusted with the execution of the search, with or without warrant and also to ensure that anything incriminating which may be said to have been found in the premises or location searched was really found there and was not introduced or planted by the officers of the search party. The legislative intent is to control and to check these mal practices of the officers, by making the presence of independent and respectable persons compulsory for search of a place and seizure of articles.
19. On any deviation from the procedure, the entire panchanama cannot be discarded and the proceedings are not vitiated. If any deviation from the procedure occurs due to a practical impossibility, then that should be recorded by the investigating officer in his file so as to enable him who answered during the time of his examination as a witness in the court of law.
20. The procedure enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed by the Investigating Officer while drawing the panchanama. In a case u/s.399 and 402 of IPC, the evidence of panch witnesses and panchanama plays pivotal role. There is no evidence of independent witnesses to prove the drawing of panchanama in this case. The prosecution has also not examined other panch witness in whose presence the articles were seized as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6. The evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 who had conducted raid had apprehended the accused persons and seized the weapons as per Ex.P.1 has not been corroborated with the evidence of independent witness to prove the presence of accused persons of the spot and seizure of weapons. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the 14 S.C.No.1564/2022 accused beyond reasonable doubt. Though the prosecution has lead the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5- the police officials, there is no evidence of independent witnesses- C.Ws.2 to 9 to corroborate their evidence. The prosecution has failed to examine the independent witnesses. Only on the evidence of Police officials- P.Ws.1 to 5, the accused No.2 and 5 cannot be convicted. As such, the available evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 5 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.2 and 5. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the points under consideration in the negative.
21. Point No.3: In view of above discussions and finding to point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 and 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s.399 and 402 of IPC.
The accused No.2 and 5 are set at liberty in this case.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.2 and 5 shall remain in force for a period of three months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Note: Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file along with M.Os. in connection to absconding accused.
(Directly dictated to the Typist directly on Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 22nd day of May, 2025) (HEMANTH KUMAR C.R.) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.15 S.C.No.1564/2022
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1: B.K Nageshaiah P.W.2: Jagadish Patil P.W.3: Shiva Kumar P.W.4: P.K Mohan P.W.5: Chandrappa S.M
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Seizure-mahazar Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.3: Report of CW12 Ex.P.4: Seizure-Panchanama Ex.P.5: FIR Ex.P.6: Seizure-Panchanama Ex.P.7: Voluntary statement of accused
List of material object marked on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1: Long dragger M.O.2: Button knife M.O.3: Iron pipe
List of witnesses examined, and documents and material objects marked on behalf of defence: -Nil-
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.