Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbal Police vs Accused Has Not Pleaded Guilt Of Alleged on 1 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of February 2022.
Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.11645/2013
Date of Offence : 22-2-2013
Name of complainant : State by Hebbal Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Mani @ Manikanta
S/o late Murthy,
aged 21 years,
residing No.11, 5th cross,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru 32.
Offences complained off: U/s.363 of IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 01-02-2022.
2 C. C.No.11645/2013
JUDGMENT
The Sub Inspector of Police, Hebbal Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused above named for offence punishable under sections 363 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:- On 21-2-2013 accused insisted C.W.2 to accompany him in his autorickshaw and when she refused to do so, he kidnapped her. Thereafter, on 22-2-2013 C.W.1 being father of C.W.2 lodged first information in the matter before Hebbal police, which was registered by them in their PS Crime No.28/2013 and FIR is issued. Accused was apprehended by concerned police along with the victim. After recording statement of material witnesses and after completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused for above offence.
3. The accused was arrested during crime stage and he is enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge 3 C. C.No.11645/2013 sheet, cognizance of above offence is taken and summons is issued against accused. Accused has appeared this before court in pursuant to summons. Copies of charge sheet is furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. However, during pendency of the case the accused has absconded and again he is secured under coercive steps. Charge is framed against accused. Accused has not pleaded guilt of alleged offence and he has claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked 5 documents as per Exs.P1 to P5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him and he has not led any defence evidence. 4 C. C.No.11645/2013
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on 21-2-2013 accused had kidnapped C.W.2 from her house situated at 5th cross, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and thereby he has committed offence punishable under section 363 of IPC?
2. What order ?
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- In support of it's case prosecution has got examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to 3. P.W.2 5 C. C.No.11645/2013 K.M.Kumar S/o Mariyappa, who is father of victim and first information of this case has partly supported prosecution case and he has testified that C.W.2 is his daughter and in the year 2013 she had not returned to their house for long time, after thorough search, he lodged Ex.P1 first information on suspicion. He has further testified that on next day police informed him that they traced out C.W.2 and he brought her to the house from police station. On being treated as hostile in part, P.W.2 has been cross examined by learned Senior APP, wherein he has admitted that he has mentioned in Ex.P1 first information that accused would have taken C.W.2 and he does not remember if police obtained his signature on Ex.P3 mahazar in his house. Further he has denied to have given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P4. However in cross-examination by defence side, P.W.2 has clearly admitted that he lodged Ex.P1 information out of fear and police themselves prepared 6 C. C.No.11645/2013 it. Further he has admitted that he did not read it as he cannot read Kannada language and he signed Ex.P3 mahazar at Police Station itself. Most importantly P.W.2 has clearly admitted that accused had not kidnapped C.W.2 and she had voluntarily went outside somewhere else. This material elicitations from cross-examination of P.W.2 clearly shows that accused has not kidnapped C.W.2/PW3 and as per his own version Ex.P1 information was not prepared by him.
8. Most importantly P.W.3/C.W.2 who is victim alleged kidnapping has completely turned hostile by testifying that she does not know accused and facts of the case, she does not know about complaint lodged by C.W.1 and she was not kidnapped by anybody. She has further stated that police have never enquired her nor recorded her statement at any time. This witness is treated as hostile by learned Sr.APP and in cross-examination by prosecution side, she has 7 C. C.No.11645/2013 denied the entire case of prosecution with regard to alleged kidnapping by accused. She has further denied to have given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P5.
9. The I.O. of this case Sree Harsha K.N. S/o Narayana Rao, the then PSI of Hebbal PS is examined u/s 299 of Cr.P.C. The said witness has testified in his evidence that on 22-2-2013 complainant came to Hebbal PS and lodged Ex.P1 first information. He registered the case in their PS Cr.No.28/2013 and issued FIR as per Ex.P2. He has further testified that on same day he conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P3 and he has identified his signatures on above documents as per Ex.P1(a) to P3(a). P.W.1 has further testified that he recorded statements of C.W.1 & 7, on 23-2-2013 accused was arrested and produced before him by one Venkatesh P.C., he recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statements of C.W.2 to 7 on same day. However, in view of hostile evidence of the victim - P.W.3, the evidence of this witness does 8 C. C.No.11645/2013 not help the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of accused.
10. Hence in view of hostile evidence of P.W.2 and 3, the rest of the witnesses are dropped as no purpose of prosecution will be served by examining them. Further the accused has denied incriminating evidence of P.W.1 and 2 in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and in view of hostile evidence of other principal witnesses, evidence of P.W.1 does not help prosecution in any manner.
11. Thus on perusal of evidence of prosecution it shows that the principal witness-cum- victim/P.W.3 has completely turned hostile and P.W.2 who is first informant has also clearly admitted that the accused had not kidnapped P.W.2. Hence in view of hostile evidence of said witnesses, there is nothing to believe that the accused had kidnapped P.W.2 as per case of prosecution and thereby he has committed 9 C. C.No.11645/2013 punishable under section 363 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts. Hence point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
12. Point No.2: - For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
( Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 1 st day of February 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Sree Harsha K.N.,
10 C. C.No.11645/2013
P.W.2, K.M.Kumar,
P.W.3, Smt.Pavithra;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Complaint, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2, First information report, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P3, Spot mahazar, Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P3(b), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P4, Portion of further statement of P.W.2, Ex.P5, Statement of P.W.3; List of material object : NIL
List of Witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL 1 st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.11 C. C.No.11645/2013
1-2-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
1st ACMM, Bengaluru.