Bangalore District Court
Kirugavalu Ps vs A1 Dilipa D A Alias Jcb Dilipa on 13 August, 2024
KABC010056932020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI &
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CASES AT
BENGALURU (CCH-34)
Dated 13th day of August, 2024
-: PRESENT :-
Sri.H.A.Mohan, B.A.L., LL.B.
XXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru
Spl.C.C.No.123/2020
COMPLAINANT : Kirugavalu Police Station
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor
Smt.Nirmal Rani.T.C.)
-vs-
ACCUSED : 1. Dilip A @ JCB Dilipa
S/o Annekegowda
Aged about 32 years
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
2 Spl.C.C.123/2020
2. Ananda DB @ CCTV Ananda
S/o Bandigaiah
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
3. Rajesh DM.@ Raji
S/o Madegowda,
Aged about 23 years
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
4. Ananda @ Mysurammana
Mommaga
S/o Ramegowda,
Aged about 35 years
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
5. Umesh R.K. @ Bonda
S/o Kallegowda,
Aged about 26years,
R/at Ramanduru Village,
Kirugavalu Hobli,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
6. Manjuram B.M. (Split up)
S/o Late Mahalingegowda,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Bekka Village,
Sravanabelagola Hobli,
Channarayapatna Tq, Hassan.
3 Spl.C.C.123/2020
7. DM.Abishek @ Abhi
(Dead- Abated)
S/o Madegowda,
Aged about 23 years
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
8. Channakeshava C @ Sanju
S/o Channegowda
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Ramanduru Village,
Kirugavalu Hobli, Malavalli Tq,
Mandya
9. Chaluvarajulu CS @
Onduvare
S/o Late Sannegowda
Aged about 22 years,
R/at Chunchegowdanakoppalu
Village, Kirugavalu Hobli,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
10. Mahadevaswamy D.R. @
Keera
S/o C.Madaiah,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Ramanduru village,
Kirugavalu Hobli,
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
11. Purushothamam D.R. @
Purushi
S/o Ramepowda,
Aged About 30 years,
4 Spl.C.C.123/2020
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
12. Ramalinga @ Buka
S/o Gadigegowda
Aged about 36years,
R/at Ramanduru Village,
Kirugavalu Hobli, Malavalli Tq.,
Mandya
13. Vasu (Dead- Abated)
S/o Lakshmanna Shetty,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
14. Babu D.G.
S/o Govindegowda
Aged about 29 years,
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
15. Arvind R
S/o Ramegowda,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
16. Abhishek .T.
S/o Devegowda,
Aged about 22 years,
5 Spl.C.C.123/2020
R/o Doddamulagudu village,
Bannuru Hobli, TN.Pura Taluk,
Mysore District.
(By Sri.A.M.N., Adv. For A1 to
4 & 11, Sri.M.D.M. Adv., for
A8,9, 14 & 16, Sri. D.M.M.,
Adv., for A5, 10 & 15)
Date of commission of 12.12.2016
the offence/s:
Date & time of Report of 13.12.2016
the offence/s:
Offences charged: U/S. 120B, 395, 471 & 212
of IPC
Name of the State by Kirugavalu Police,
Complainant : Mandya District
Date of commencement 16.01.2023
of the evidence :
Evidence of prosecution 30.04.2024
closed on:
Statement of accused 02.07.2024
u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.:
Evidence of accused Nil
closed on :
Final Verdict: Accused Nos.1 to 5, 8 to
12 & 14 are convicted for
the offence punishable
u/s.212 r/w Sec.120B, 471,
6 Spl.C.C.123/2020
420, 489(2), 341 and 395
of IPC.
Accused No.15 & 16 are
acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s.212 r/w
Sec.120B of IPC
Digitally signed
by MOHAN
Date:
MOHAN 2024.08.13
(H.A.Mohan)
16:16:13
+0530
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from the charge sheet submitted by CPI of Kirugavalu police, against the accused persons, for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 395, 471 & 212 of IPC.
2. Originally this case was filed before JMFC court at Malavalli in Mandya District and committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. Since Enforcement Directorate also had registered 7 Spl.C.C.123/2020 ECIR and started investigation under PML Act, 2002, prosecution had filed application u/s.44(1)(c) of the PML Act, 2002 and as per the order dtd.22.11.2019, the District & Sessions Judge, Mandya has submitted this file to this court, since this court has jurisdiction to try the offence under PML Act and the case in Spl.CC No.233/2018 was pending before this court, for trial along with that case.
3. This court has received the file on 22.02.2020 and proceeded further.
4. The case of the complainant police is that, during the period ie., on 8.11.2016 the Central Government has issued notification for the purpose of demonitising the currency notes of Rs.500 and 1000 to curb the black money, but, by taking undue advantage of the said demonitisation notification 8 Spl.C.C.123/2020 and with an intention to have wrongful gain, accused No.1 to 6, 8 & 10 hatched a plan of criminal conspiracy and they joined together on 9.12.2016 in a goat farm of Smt.Leelavathi, elder sister of accused No.8, constructed in Sy.No.133 and collected demonitised currency notes of Rs.1000 and prepared wret pieces to the size of Rs.1000 currency notes and made people to believe that there were demonitised currency notes of Rs.1000 and kept them in wret box, so as to see that, all pieces were Rs.1000 currency notes and started making people to believe that they had demonitised currency notes of Rs.1000 and if new currency notes were given to them, they would pay extra 20% in the form of demonitised currency notes, and in furtherence of their criminal conspiracy, they hatched a plan that, by utilising the said 9 Spl.C.C.123/2020 opportunity, they could threaten the people who come for exchanging the demonitised currency notes after making payment in the new currency notes of Rs.2000 and accordingly, Accused No.7, 9, 11 to 14 had given consent for that criminal conspiracy and then Accused No.3 got contacted CW5 through Cws.6 to 9 and proclaimed that, if new currency notes of Rs.2000 are paid, they would pay 20% extra in the form of demonitised currency notes of Rs.1000, and made him to believe and then CW5 informed the same to CW2 and then CW2 in turn, informed to CW1, 3 & 4, 16 and CW40 to 49 and asked them to come with currency notes of Rs.2000 and accordingly, on 12.12.2016, in furtherence of their criminal conspiracy, Accused No.3 took CW2 & 4 with him to the spot where demonitised currency notes were kept, on his motor 10 Spl.C.C.123/2020 cycle bearing registration No.KA.55.V.8571 at Yachenahalli cross and saw the currency notes kept in the Indica car dicky bearing registration No.KA.50.4166 shown by accused No.1 & 2 to CW4, then CW4 contacted CW2 over phone and asked CW2, to bring new currency notes for the purpose of exchanging at 20% extra with old currency notes and in order to get 20% extra, old currency notes, CW2 collected currency notes of Rs.2000 in a sum of Rs.67 Lakhs from Cw1,3 & 4, 16 and CW40 to 49 and in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the currency notes of Rs.100/- and totally Rs.67,50,000/-, including his own currency notes.
5. It is further alleged that by taking the said amount of Rs.67,50,000/- CW2, 3 & 5 went along with Accused No.4 in the car bearing registration 11 Spl.C.C.123/2020 No.KA.51-B-0887 ie., Toyota Etios Car belongs to CW15 and went in the said car by following the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.55.V.8571 on which Accused No.3 and CW4 were going and as per instructions of Accused No.1, Accused No.6 & 14, were waiting near at Yachanahalli Cross for the persons who were bringing new currency notes and after coming to know that only CW2, 3 & 5 were coming along with Accused No.4 in the said Toyota Etios Car, accused No.6 informed the same to accused No.1, then CW2 took the amount of Rs.67,50,000/- to the car, in which CW3 & 5 along with accused No.4 were going and accused No.3 along with CW4 had followed the said car on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.55-V-8571 and when they reached Ramanduru - Kariurulikoppalu tank bund at about 1.45pm., which 12 Spl.C.C.123/2020 is within the limits of Kirugavalu Police Station, as per their previous criminal conspiracy and as informed by accused No.1 to others accused persons, accused No.13 along with accused No.7 came in a tractor on the said tank bund by driving the tractor slowly and during that period, accused No.3 along with CW4 over took that car on his motor cycle and during that period, accused No.5, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 who were standing by hiding themselves by the side of the road, and when the said Toyota Etios Car came there, accused No.8, 9 & 10 thrown eggs on the said Toyota Etios car and by seeing the same, CW2 started driving the car in a high speed, then accused No.13 & 7 slowed down the speed of the tractor and stopped in front of the car, so as to prevent CW2 from moving forward, and when CW2 tried to take the car in a reverese direction, accused 13 Spl.C.C.123/2020 No.5 took accused No.8 & 9 on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.55-J-9096 by riding the motor cycle and by overtaking the car, he stopped his bike in front of the said car and then accused No.8 & 9 by opening car door, thrown chilly powder on CW2, 3 & 5 who were sitting in the car and then Accused No.9 snatched the bag from CW2 in which money was kept, then accused No.8 also snatched the cover in which money was kept holding by Cw3, and then ran away from the place and thereby committed the offence of decoity and there after, all the accused No.1 to 14 joined together and got distributed the amount by themselves and when they were arrested subsequently, amount of Rs.54,11,000/- was recovered from them, since, they revealed that they have utilised the remaining amount and it was brought to the notice that 14 Spl.C.C.123/2020 accused No.15 & 16 had given shelter to accused No.1 to 4, 6 & 7, so as to see that they were not caught hold by the police and thereby all the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.
6. After submitting the charge sheet, learned JMFC, Malavalli, took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. It is seen that during the course of said proceedings Accused No.13 Sri.Vasu was reported to be dead and accordingly case against accused No.13 was ordered to be abated. Further since, accused No.6 was not traced, as he was absconding, learned JMFC, has ordered to split up the case against accused No.6. It is seen that as per order dtd.19.3.2019, learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Malavalli has ordered to commit the case against accused No.1 to 5, 7 to 12 and 14 to 16 to 15 Spl.C.C.123/2020 the court of District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, accordingly case was received by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge and he assigned the case to the Vth Addl District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. During the course of the proceedings, accused No.7 DM. Abishek @ Abhi was also reported to be dead and accordingly shown that case against him is abated.
7. After receipt of the records by this court, after the State Government, Department of Director of Prosecution appointed the Special Public Prosecutor, charge for the afore said offences was framed by this court on 25.7.2022. Since Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12, 14 to 16 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, case was posted for FDT.
8. Thereafter, prosecution has examined 16 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Cws.1 to 11, 14, 15, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26, 28, 30 to 34, 41 to 44, 27, 45 to 48, 50, 21, 24, 25, 29, 49, 52, 54, 8, 40, 51, 22, 56, 71, 55, 53 & 74 respectively as PW1 to 52 and got marked Ex.P1 to P85 and M.O.1 to 21.
9. Thereafter, statement as contemplated u/s.313 of Cr.PC was recorded by putting incriminating evidence available against the accused persons. The answers given by respective accused have been typed in the computer and after taking print outs, signatures of the accused persons were taken. It was submitted that no other incriminating evidence is left while framing the questions.
10. Since accused have not chosen to submit their written statements and not chosen to adduce 17 Spl.C.C.123/2020 any evidence, the case was posted for arguments.
11. Learned SPP, filed written arguments and copy were furnished to the other side. Two dates were given to the accused to submit their arguments. But they did not submit either their oral arguments or written arguments. Hence, arguments on behalf of the accused persons is taken as nil. However two days time was granted to them to submit the written arguments if any, but they have not submitted their written arguments.
12. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that during November 2016 ie., after Central Government has issued 18 Spl.C.C.123/2020 notification dtd.8.11.2016 for demonitisation of currency notes of Rs.500 and 1000, with an intention to have wrongful gain, by defrauding the said notification, accused No.1 to 6, 8 & 10 had a criminal conspiracy to induce people to pay new currency notes of Rs.2000 in lieu of old currency notes of Rs.500 and 1000, along with additional amount at 20% extra and for that accused No.7, 9, 11 to 14 have given consent and accused No.8 has given shelter for preparation to commit the offence and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 212 r/w Sec.120B of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherence of their criminal conspiracy the said accused persons 19 Spl.C.C.123/2020 prepared currency notes of Rs.1000 on xerox papers and kept the same in a wret box in order to make the people to believe that there were original currency notes of Rs.1000 and accordingly same was informed to CW2 through CW5 and then CW2 informed to CW1, 3 & 4, 16, 40 to 49 with regard to exchange of currency notes and accordingly on 12.12.2016, when CW2 & 5 went along with accused No.3 & CW4, on a motor cycle and shown the xerox currency notes which were kept by accused No.6 in a car bearing registration No.KA.50- 4166, to CW4 by accused No.1 & 2 and then when CW2, 3 & 5 along with accused No.4 went to that place in a Toyota Etios Car bearing registration No.KA.51.V.0887 along with an amount of Rs.67,50,000/- in 2000 20 Spl.C.C.123/2020 and 100 currency notes, as per their conspiracy, accused made CW2 to stop the car by parking the tractor in front of the car, and then some accused persons thrown eggs on the front glass of the car and then by opening the door of the car, thrown chilly powder on CW2, 3 & 5 and snatched the currency notes bag and ran away from the spot and subsequently, they got themselves distributed the amount and thereby committed the offence of decoity by cheating the witnesses and also by wrongfully confining them and when police arrested the accused persons, they recovered an amount of Rs.54,11,000/- from them and came to know that accused No.15 & 16 have given shelter by way of harbouring other accused persons to excape from the case and thereby 21 Spl.C.C.123/2020 accused have committed the offences punishable under sections 341, 395, 471, 420, 489(e) r/w Sec.120(B) of IPC?
3. What order?
13. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative against A.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 and in the Negative against A.15 & 16.
Point No.3 : 'As per final order' for the following:
REASONS
14. POINT Nos.1 & 2: Since, these two points are interrelated to each other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, they are taken up together for consideration.
22 Spl.C.C.123/2020
15. I have carefully gone through the written arguments submitted by learned PP Smt. Nirmala Rani. The learned PP has highlighted as to the scope of the evidence of PW1 to 6 & others and also with regard to the recovery of amounts from the accused persons and also with regard to the drawing of mahazars at the spot, at the places were amounts were recovered, at the places where vehicles in question were seized and also with regard to the evidence of I.O. In the light of some decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that there is sufficient evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the said charges, beyond all reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that minor discrepancies if any, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is required to be ignored and 23 Spl.C.C.123/2020 the same cannot be considered as benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. It is also pointed out that evidence of main witnesses is not challenged by the accused with regard to the presence of accused persons particularly, accused No.3 & 4 and also others with regard to their conspiracy, pre- arrangement to commit decoity ie., with regard to snatching of the amount from the witnesses at the spot and also with regard to seizure of money from them. Proper test identification parade has been conducted by I.O., through the Tahsildar ie., PW50 and he has given proper report as to whom the witnesses identified the particular accused and the same has not been properly challenged by the accused persons.
16. It is further pointed out that just because 24 Spl.C.C.123/2020 some witnesses turned hostile with regard to payment of amount in currency notes of Rs.2000 to the hands of CW2 and others, since CW2 and others have clearly deposed about receipt of currency notes of Rs.2000 from these witnesses, the said evidence can be ignored. Further it is pointed out that just because of some witnesses have turned hostile with regard to the mahazars, in inview of evidence of PW1 to 5 and others particularly evidence of I.O, ie., PW52, prosecution has proved the case even with regard to the drawing up of mahazars at the spot, places were vehicles were seized and also amounts were recovered. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. It is pointed out that there is no vested interest with the witnesses to register a false complaint, since these accused persons were not 25 Spl.C.C.123/2020 known to these witnesses, before the incident was taken place. The accused persons have failed to establish that these witnesses are interested witnesses and accordingly registered a false complaint and gave a false statement. Accordingly, prayed to answer the charges infavour of the prosecution.
17. As stated above, on behalf of the accused, arguments have not been addressed.
18. In the light of the above facts and the written submissions on behalf of the prosecution and also the defence taken by the accused during the course of cross examination, I have carefully perused the evidence placed on record.
19. PW1 Sri.Srinivas, working as post master of 26 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Kalenahalli, Mandya District and he is the complainant of this case. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P2. He has deposed with regard to lodging of complaint about the incident, on the next day ie., on 13.12.2016. Of course, admittedly he was not present when alleged decoity was taken place. However, his evidence is to the effect that after hearing about news with regard to exchanging of currency notes, he also had given Rs.5 Lakhs in the currency notes of Rs.2000/- to the hands of CW2 R. Srinivas. He has deposed with regard to the presence of accused No.4 Sri.Ananda @ Mysurammana Mommaga along with Smt. Manjula and CW2. He has also deposed with regard to the presence of Sri.Lingaraju who has been examined as PW3. He deposed that after he came to know 27 Spl.C.C.123/2020 from CW2, that amounts were robbed by some people, they sat together along with Smt.Manjula near Yachanahalli and after having discussed about the matter, on the next day he lodged complaint. He stated that he himself, has written the complaint. He has also deposed with regard to drawing up of spot mahazar on the next day ie., on 14.12.2016 by the police and he has also identified accused No.4 and also identified Etios car visible in the photographs marked as Ex.P3 to 6. It is to be noted that all the vehicles have been released in favour of the owners, as per orders of the court and in that regard, accused have not raised any objections.
20. PW1 has also deposed with regard to the recovery of money from the accused by Malavalli 28 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Police, when they were arrested. He has identified these accused persons who were present on that day ie., on 16.1.2023 when his evidence was recorded. But, since other accused were not present on that day and exemption application were filed, learned counsel did not raise any objections with regard to their identity. He has identified the currency notes of Rs.54,11,000/- recovered from the accused, through photographs marked as Ex.P7. Since Enforcement Directorate has also registered a case and recovered these amounts and kept the same in fixed deposit as per the orders passed in that case, photographs have been produced and in that regard, objection has not been raised.
21. Further, since this witness has not disclosed certain facts, he was treated as hostile 29 Spl.C.C.123/2020 and accordingly, learned PP has conducted cross examination. In the cross examination, he has admitted remaining facts with regard to who called him and assured him to exchange the currency notes, who went along with whom and in which vehicle and who gave information etc.
22. In the cross examination, it was suggested that he was a post master and accused persons before the court were very young, when compared to his age, with regard to who has written complaint and also with regard to non-production of the documents pertaining to that money and mobile numbers. In fact certain suggestions made in para 11 of the cross examination would rather in the form of admission. He has specifically denied the suggestion that a false complaint has been 30 Spl.C.C.123/2020 submitted by him. A suggestion that he did not make note of the serial numbers of the currency notes before it was handed to other witnesses, in any way does not helpful to the case of the accused. Because, law does not say that a person stated to have lend amount to other person, is supposed to make a mention about the serial numbers of the currency notes. The suggestion that photo visible in Ex.P7(c) were not viewed by inserting CD to the computer also does not go against the case of the prosecution. Because that aspect itself does not take away the case of the prosecution. Of course, conduct on the part of this witness with regard to attempt made to have wrongful gain by violating demonitisation circular, cannot be appreciated by the court of law. But, since, this is a case of decoity and conspiracy, said 31 Spl.C.C.123/2020 aspects cannot be taken seriously. Nothing worth has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit the testimony with regard to the presence of A3 & 4 along with CW5 Smt.Manjula.
23. PW2 R.Srinivas, PW3 Lingaraju, PW4 Vinukumar S.B., and PW5 Smt.Manjula are the star witnesses to the case in hand. Because evidence of these witnesses clearly support the case of PW1, with regard to the information gathered by them through CW5 Smt.Manjula for exchanging new currency notes of Rs.2000 with demonitised currency notes of Rs.500 & 1000, the date on which they had discussion and the date on which they went to the place of occurrence in a car along with Accused No.4 and accused No.3 was riding the motor cycle in question along with CW4 and also 32 Spl.C.C.123/2020 with regard to stopping the motor cycle in front of car at that place and also presence of other accused persons who came in a tractor and also some of them were hiding their faces near by road and also with regard to throwing of eggs on the front glass of the car, their wrongful confinement in the car and also with regard to pouring chilli powder on their face by opening the door and also robbing the amount of Rs.67,50,000/- from the custody of either PW2 or 3 and running away from that place along with that money. Except some minor contradictions as to who was holding the bag containing currency notes and from whose custody it was snatched and who opened the door of the car, with regard to other aspects, there is a clear consistency among these witnesses. The said minor discrepancies bound to occur when the witnesses were examined 33 Spl.C.C.123/2020 after lapse of about 7 years from the date of incident.
24. It is to be noted that as stated above, whether collection of currency notes from others for the purpose of exchanging the same with demonitised currency notes is legal or illegal is not so relevant to decide this case. The fact as to whether actually that much of money was collected from different persons as per the assurance given by accused No.3 & 4 and others after Smt.Manjula (PW5) gave information with regard to the scam of exchanging currency notes was going on in Mandya District or not, in that regard even though in this case prosecution has not placed materials, but in the ED case (Spl.CC.No.233/2018), Enforcement Directorate officials have collected the bank details 34 Spl.C.C.123/2020 of various persons to ascertain the fact that said persons had withdrawn the amounts during the relevant period from their respective accounts. Their statements as per Sec.50(3) of PMLA also have been recorded by ED officials. The said documents and statements since available in this court itself, that also becomes relevant, since it is also a parallel investigation conducted by ED Authority inview of the Special Provisions under PML Act and the constitutional validity of that Act has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudry case. Hence, there is no bar for this court to rely upon the said documents just to get a confirmation as to whether these witnesses had collected money from different persons.
25. That apart, the prosecution has also 35 Spl.C.C.123/2020 examined PW14, even though this witness has turned hostile, but he has deposed with regard to payment of Rs.5 Lakhs made to PW2 during December 2016. Further, PW27 Sri.Somashekar has also deposed with regard to payment of Rs.2,70,000/- as hand loan to one Sri.Chethan, during the relevant period. He has also deposed with regard to the information gathered by him with regard to robbing of that amount near Malavalli. Further, PW28 Sri.GK.Srinivas has also deposed with regard to payment of Rs.3 Lakhs in the currency notes of Rs.2000 during the relevant period to the said Chethan and also with regard to the information that the same was robbed by some people. Further, PW29 Sri.Narendra N.M. has also deposed with regard to payment of Rs.3,50,000/- in currency notes of Rs.2000 during the relevant 36 Spl.C.C.123/2020 period infavour of PW4 Sri.Vinukumar and also with regard to information that somebody had robbed the said amount. Further, PW30 Sri.Pawan Raj has also deposed with regard to payment of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of PW4 Sri.Vinukumar in currency notes of Rs.2000 during the relevant period and also with regard to the information that the said amount was robbed by some body.
26. Further, PW32 Sri.KN.Manikanta has also deposed about payment of Rs.3 Lakhs to PW4 Sri.Vinukumar who is his brother in law, in Rs.2000 currency notes during the relevant period and also with regard to information gathered that the same was robbed by somebody. Further, PW33 Sri.G.S.Sunil Kumar in his evidence also deposed that after collecting Rs.3 Lakhs from his friend 37 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Sri.Shivananjegowda along with the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs which was with him, he had paid total amount of Rs.6 Lakhs in Rs.2000 currency notes, to his friend PW3 Sri.Lingaraju during the relevant period and also the information gathered that the said amount was robbed by some persons. Further, PW34 Sri.M.J.Appugowda has also deposed that during the relevant period, as per the request of his friend PW3 Sri.Lingaraju, he had paid an amount of Rs.3.50 Lakhs in Rs.2000 and Rs.100 currency notes and also deposed with regard to the information gathered that the same was robbed by some body. Further, PW35 Sri.Devaraju in his evidence has also deposed that during the relevant period as per the request of his friend PW3 Sri.Lingaraju he had paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- in Rs.2000 currency notes and also deposed with regard to information 38 Spl.C.C.123/2020 gathered that the same was robbed by somebody.
27. As stated above, the statements of these witnesses and others have been recorded by the ED officials and also collected relevant bank statements. Therefore, eventhough these witnesses have turned hostile with regard to the discussion taken place pertaining to the exchanging of currency notes, but their evidence with regard to payment of the said amounts to the hands of PW2 to 4, as claimed by them is corroborative and nothing worth has been elicited in their cross examination to discredit their oral testimony with regard to the payment of that amounts. Whether it was legal transaction or not is not so relevant, pertaining to this case.
28. In that regard, the prosecution is relying 39 Spl.C.C.123/2020 upon the decision reported in JT 2010(9) SC 95 (Muniyappan & others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). In this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the evidence of hostile witness cannot be discorded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence".
29. Further, the subsequent decision, reported in 2020(3) Crimes 293 KAR , in Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view that "Even evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon to an extent of which it supports the prosecution version of incident".
30. In view of the said judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Courts, the above said evidence of the witnesses to the extent of evidence which is 40 Spl.C.C.123/2020 favourable to the prosecution is to be accepted, since the said portion of the evidence has not been challenged by the accused in accordance with law by demolishing the said evidence. Therefore, to that effect the prosecution has clearly placed the legally acceptable evidence.
31. Further, since these witnesses, it appears had forgotten certain facts, because of fact that trial was started conducting after lapse of nearly 7 years of the incident, the Learned PP after taking permission, has also conducted cross examination and elicited admissions. These witnesses have given positive answers to the said questions. So the evidence of Pws.2 to 5 is as per the say of PW1 and the case of prosecution. Further, they have also admitted about the vehicles and amounts when 41 Spl.C.C.123/2020 they were shown through photographs. They have, particularly PW2 & 3 have identified accused No.4, 8 & 3 stating that they snatched the amount from them and also admitted about the role of accused No.3 & 4.
32. In the cross examination, nothing worth has been elicited either to show that these witnesses were not at all present on those days along with accused No.3 & 4 and also to show that accused No.4 did go along with these witnesses in the car, to the place and accused No.3 was not going on his motor cycle along with Cw4. They have also failed to elicit that these witnesses have given a false complaint owing to any previous illwill or animocity. It is a fact that these witnesses were not known to the accused persons before 12.12.2016.
42 Spl.C.C.123/2020 They were not at all either friends or relatives. Therefore, if any suggestion is made that a false case has been registered by them, it is not possible to believe and accept by the court of law. Because, admittedly there were no ill-will or animocity between these witnesses and the accused persons. Further police have also recovered mobile phone of these accused persons and marked without any objections. In that regard, the prosecution is relying upon Ex.P71 & 72. These are the reports submitted by FSL. These documents were marked with consent. Hence, there is no impediment to rely upon these documents. The said documents are supported by CD. The reports disclose that the mobile contained 599 voices recording files and they are similar in nature. This evidence, supports the case of prosecution with regard to the mobiles 43 Spl.C.C.123/2020 used by the accused during the relevant period. Therefore, there is no reason to accept the contention that these witnesses had vested interest or previous illwill against these accused persons to register a false case and to dispose falsely before court of law against them.
33. Further, if the cross examination portion is carefully perused, it is clear that nothing worth has been elicited by the accused to discredit the testimony of these witnesses with regard to the presence of accused along with these witnesses, snatching of money from them at that place etc. In fact, some suggestions are in the form of admission. As stated above since nothing worth has been elicited to discredit testimony of these witnesses, there is no reason for this court to discredit the 44 Spl.C.C.123/2020 testimony of these witnesses. In fact, evidence of these witnesses is corroborative to each other with regard to the presence of accused No.3 & 4, since the beginning, going with them, snatching of money, motor cycle and the tractor and also with regard to throwing eggs on the front glass of the car and pouring chilli powder on PW2 &3 and snatching the currency notes.
34. The suggestion that since car was having interlock facility and the key was with PW2, therefore, it was not possible for the accused to open the door of the car either to pour chilly powder or to snatch the currency notes bag in any way favour the accused persons. Because, it has been established that accused No.4 was also in the car, during the process, therefore, he must have 45 Spl.C.C.123/2020 opened the door of the car from inside. When the fact that accused No.4 was sitting inside the car has been established by the prosecution, by examining 4 witnesses without giving any ambiguity, argument of prosecution in that regard that it was possible for accused No.4 to open the door is required to be believed and accepted.
35. The contention that there was delay of one day in lodging the complaint does not enure to the benefit of the accused, because in Ex.P1 proper explanation has been given. Moreover, in a case of this nature, lodging complaint before completion of one day of the incident is not a fatal. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the facts pleaded by the prosecution.
46 Spl.C.C.123/2020
36. PW6 & 7 are independent witnesses with regard to arranging new currency notes. But, for obvious reasons they have turned hostile. Of course, hostility of these witnesses in any way does not take way the case of the prosecution.
37. PW8 Sridhar Gowda is the son of PW5 Smt.Manjula. His evidence would go to show that he himself has introduced accused No.4 & 9 to the witnesses. He has also stated about the presence of CW8 at that point of time and he himself has given information to his mother with regard to the scam that was prevailed in Mandya District with regard to exchanging of currency notes. He has clearly stated that accused No.4 & 9 had come to his house and also with regard to taking money in the car and also with regard to the car. He has also identified 47 Spl.C.C.123/2020 fake currency notes marked as M.O.1.
38. Nothing worth has been elicited in his cross examination to discard his oral testimony with regard to relevant points. Because, it was not possible for the accused to elicit with regard to non- presence of accused No.4 & 9 during the relevant period. This witness was treated as hostile to some extent and during the course of cross examination conducted by the learned PP, he has made certain admissions, but he has not been subjected for further cross examination.
39. There is one more corroborative piece of evidence to prove the presence of Accused No.4 along with PW5. The said witness is PW15 Sri.Karigowda. He has deposed that he knew accused No.4 only. He also deposed that on that 48 Spl.C.C.123/2020 day, during December 2016 in the morning, at about 11.00 - 12.00 when he was near Grama Panchayat, a person by name Anand from his village took him in the car by telling that he was going to Mandya and when they reached Kotharegere, Accused No.4 and one lady boarded the said car and went near Yachenahalli circle and at that place, he alighted from the car. Even though he has turned hostile with regard to other aspects, but his evidence with regard to presence of Accused No.4 along with PW5 has been established. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination conducted by the accused, to show that he was not present and this witness has given a false evidence.
40. Of course, PW13 Sri.Murthy, PW16 Sri.Jayarm, PW17 Sri.Somashekar, PW18 49 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Sri.KR.Kumar have turned hostile.
41. So, the evidence of the above said witnesses is sufficient to prove the factum of the presence of accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12, & 14 along with deceased and absconded accused persons, at a relevant point of time and also with regard to robbing of the currency notes of Rs.67,50,000/- in total. Just because some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, since evidence of above said important witnesses is corroborative to each other, with regard to payment of currency notes in Rs.2000, going with accused No.3 & 4 to the place and the subsequent incident of robbery taken place, the same needs to be accepted. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned PP, there is no reason to disbelieve the 50 Spl.C.C.123/2020 evidence of these witnesses to prove the said aspect.
42. Further, in order to prove the identity of accused persons, prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of PW50. PW50 is one Sri.B.V.Maruthiprasanna who was working as Tahsilder of Mandya Taluk, during the period from 31.8.2015 to 26.7.2017. He has deposed that as per the request of CPI, dtd.16.1.2017, he visited Mandya District Central Jail on 20.1.2017 at about 10.00am., and by that time, jail superintendent was present and he had made all arrangements for the purpose of identifying the accused persons. He has submitted detailed report as per Ex.P67 consisting of 109 pages and clearly deposed as to the identity of accused No.1 to 5, 7 & 8. He has also stated that 51 Spl.C.C.123/2020 accused No.9 to 13 were not identified on that day.
43. In the cross examination some general suggestions were made as to whether proper procedure was followed or not, having regard to the Jail Manual, witness has given proper answers and he has denied the suggestions that test identification parade conducted by him is not proper. It is to be noted that why his report cannot be believed and accepted by the court, the learned counsel for the accused have failed to elicit proper admissions. Since there is a clarity in the report as to which are the accused persons were identified by the witness and which are the accused persons were not identified by the witnesses, court cannot entertain any doubt with regard to his veracity. Therefore, there is no reason to discord the 52 Spl.C.C.123/2020 evidence of this witness and his report as per Ex.P67.
44. Just because, accused No.9 to 13 were not identified on that day, having regard to the explanation given by PW2 to 5 and having regard to the circumstances narrated by them that some of the accused persons have poured chilli powder on them and due to that, they had closed their eyes, it was possible for them to forget the faces of some of the accused persons during the course of test identification parade. Since, there is a clear evidence with regard to the presence of these accused persons ie., A.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14, there are no reasons to disbelieve the case of the prosecution in that regard.
45. Prosecution has relied upon the judgment 53 Spl.C.C.123/2020 reported in (2009) 13 SCC 790 (Satbir singh and others Vs. State of UP) and another judgment reported in (2010) 6 SCC 673 (Balraje @ Trimbak V. State of Maharashtra).
46. In the said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the case of prosecution can be proved even through interested witnesses and independent witnesses are not available, if no reason is shown to discredit their oral testimony. Truth or otherwise of the evidence has to weighted pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But, if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, 54 Spl.C.C.123/2020 there is no reason to discord the same."
47. In another decision rendered in Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2007) 14 SCC 150], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "The court has to draw a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with law." Indian legal system does not insist an plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Sec.134 of Indian Evidence Act) nor judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than an quantity, multiplicity or plurality of 55 Spl.C.C.123/2020 witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction."
48. The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to this case, in view of my above discussion and quality of evidence placed by the prosecution.
49. Further even in the cross examination of I.O., ie., PW52, only general suggestions have been made and nothing worth has been elicited to discredit to his investigation. Just by suggesting negative suggestions, without eliciting clear admissions from the mouth of the witnesses and without showing that the manner of investigation conducted by the I.O., is not in accordance with well established principles of law, evidence of I.O., also 56 Spl.C.C.123/2020 cannot be discorded only on the basis of some suggestions made in the cross examination. Therefore, since investigation conducted by PW52 is supported by the evidence of aforesaid important witnesses, it is very clear that prosecution has placed legally acceptable evidence to prove the above said important aspects.
50. The next point for consideration is with regard to the mahazars drawn by the police officers.
51. Ex.P2 is the mahazar drawn on 13.12.2016 and in that regard PW1 himself has given evidence. PW52 has drawn this mahazar. Some suggestions were made in the cross examination with regard to facing of the vehicle which was parked at the spot, I.O., has given proper explanation in that regard. Further the owner of the vehicle has not disputed 57 Spl.C.C.123/2020 about the seizure of the said car and he himself got released the same. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with that aspect.
52. The next mahazar is Ex.P30 which was drawn on 13.12.2016 at the spot by ASI Raju who has been examined as PW49. Of course, witnesses to the mahazar have turned hostile. Since the evidence of I.O., ie., PW52 is supports the case of the prosecution and since objection has not been raised with regard to seizure of the vehicle in question, turning of hostile by the witnesses cannot be a ground to disprove the case of the prosecution. Moreover, witnesses have identified their signatures. For obvious reasons, they might have thought fit to go against their previous versions, eventhough they have admitted their signatures.
58 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution even in that regard also.
53. Ex.P31 is another spot mahazar, drawn on 29.12.2016. This was also drawn by the I.O., PW52 in the presence of witnesses. Of course, witnesses have turned hostile, but since the I.O., has given proper explanation, I am of the opinion that corroboration is not required to prove this aspect.
54. Ex.P32 is the seizure mahazar drawn at the farm house belongs to Smt.Leelavathi on 29.12.2016. According to the case of the prosecution, conspiracy was taken place in that place to commit the offence. Of course, this mahazar also witnesses have turned hostile, but they have not disputed their signatures. Since, seizure of the vehicle has not been seriously 59 Spl.C.C.123/2020 disputed by the accused, even in the absence of corroboration, evidence of IO., is required to be believed and accepted.
55. Ex.P33 & 39 are the mahazars with regard to seizure of currency notes. Ex.P39 is marked with consent. Therefore, Ex.P39 is an admitted document. As per this document, currency notes were recovered from the accused No.1 to 14 and prepared panchanama by mentioning Sl.Numbers of the said currency notes. Eventhough they have disputed the recovery, the mahazar Ex.P34, since police have recovered new currency notes of Rs.2000 and since there is evidence to show that the said currency notes were produced by PW2 & 3 after they have collected the same from many witnesses, unless it is shown that these currency 60 Spl.C.C.123/2020 notes were created by the police or other persons, it is not possible to doubt the seizure of the currency notes. Because, these currency notes were printed after 9.11.2016 as per orders of the Central Government dtd. 8.11.2016. Therefore court can draw an inference that police could collect this much of Rs.54,11,000/- only from the above said accused persons and not from other persons. If it is contended that so much of amount was created by the police, it is highly improbable to accept the said aspect. Because, it is not possible for the police to collect so much of amount of Rs.54,11,000/- during that period. Therefore, in view of my above discussion, it is required to be held that the said currency notes were recovered from the said accused persons. Eventhough some witnesses were turned hostile, but having regard to the admission 61 Spl.C.C.123/2020 of their signatures, said mahazars are required to be believed and accepted.
56. The other mahazars are with regard to seizure of motor cycles and tractor. Since serious objection have not been raised with regard to getting release of the said vehicles by the owners, and since they have not given proper explanation as to how and in what manner they had reached the spot and why they were recovered by the police and when they have failed to explain about the custody of the vehicles during the relevant period, even in the absence of any witnesses, the version of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of said vehicles from the custody of the relevant accused persons is required to be believed and accepted. That apart the witnesses have clearly and 62 Spl.C.C.123/2020 categorically have identified the vehicles, they were used for commission of the offence for decoity. They have clearly deposed as to which of the accused was riding which of the motor cycle and who was driving the tractor in question, the evidence of prosecution in that regard is most believable one. Therefore, just because mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, except admitting their signatures, case of the prosecution in that regard does not fail.
57. It is to be noted that no body has made a claim with regard to the amount. When the witnesses have clearly deposed about robbery of that amount by the relevant accused persons and other persons were being parties to the criminal conspiracy, evidence of I.O., with regard to the 63 Spl.C.C.123/2020 recovery of the said amount from the custody of the accused persons, particularly having regard to the fact that the said currency notes of Rs.2000 were printed only after 9.11.2016 and it was not possible for the police, to arrange so much of huge money for the purpose of registering this case as a false case, the version of the prosecution with regard to recovery of that amount from the custody of the accused is required to be believed and accepted and nothing worth has been elicited in the cross examination of PW52 to entertain any doubt with regard to this aspect. Therefore, the suggestions made in the cross examination of PW52 are not sufficient to discredit his investigation. That apart, there is no law as such, that the evidence of I.O., if it is not demolished, shall not be believed and his evidence requires corroboration.
64 Spl.C.C.123/2020
58. With regard to this aspect, I am relying upon a judgment reported in 2011 AIR SCW 378 ( Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and others Vs. State of Gujarat, decided on 20.10.2010.)
59. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered so many previous judgments, from paras 23 to 25 it has been held which reads as under:
The courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities.
Primafacie, public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to
be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case.
65 Spl.C.C.123/2020
Where the evidence of the
investigating officer who recovered the
material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected a recovery would not stand vitiated.
In large number of cases that merely because, the panch witnesses have turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the testimony of the investigating officer alone.
60. This decision is applicable to the present case. Because as discussed earlier, having regard to the factual situation that it was possible either for the police or to the complainant and the witnesses 66 Spl.C.C.123/2020 to secure that much of huge money within a short period that too in the currency notes of Rs.2000 and since there is no evidence to show that these accused persons were either powerful having political backup and they had given any kind of threats to the police department at any point of time and due to that, the police had animocity against them to register a false case against these accused persons. There is no such defence available in this case. It is a fact that these accused persons are villagers and came from agricultural back ground and they were not so economically sound. Therefore, there was no chance for the police to submit a false investigation report against them that too, a case of this nature. It appears, their poverty is the reason for them to hatch out a plan to have wrongful gain by adopting 67 Spl.C.C.123/2020 this type of method having regard to the prevailed circumstances. But the act on the part of these accused persons cannot be accepted by the court of law.
61. Having regard to the evidence made with regard to the participation of accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 in the crime, this court has to hold that the prosecution has placed cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence to accept its version and to prove the charges levelled against them.
62. The next point for consideration is, whether harbouring of the crime by Accused No.15 & 16 as per Sec.212 of IPC by giving shelter to the other accused persons to escape from the clutches of law, is proved or not. As stated above, no acceptable evidence has been placed to establish 68 Spl.C.C.123/2020 the said aspect. No important witnesses have stated the role of the accused No.15 & 16. I.O., also failed to give proper explanation as to how and in what manner accused No.15 & 16 have harboured other accused persons. Admittedly, these accused persons were not identified during the course of test identification parade. As per the evidence of PW52, no amount has been recovered from the custody of Accused No.15 & 16. Therefore, unless there is a believable and legally acceptable evidence is placed to prove the alleged role of Accused No.15 & 16, it is not possible for the court to accept the case of the prosecution in that regard. Benefit of doubt in the case shall be extended in favour of accused No.15 & 16 for the offence punishable u/s.212 r/w Sec.120B of IPC. But as stated above charges framed against accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 69 Spl.C.C.123/2020 have been proved by the prosecution by placing cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Accordingly, I answer above points.
63. POINT NO.3: In view of my above said findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby convict the accused Nos.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 for the offence punishable under section 212 r/w Sec.120B, 471, 420, 489(2), 341 and 395 of IPC.
Further, acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit 70 Spl.C.C.123/2020
accused No.15 & 16 of the offences punishable under section 212 r/w Sec.120B of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused persons and that of their surety shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then signed by me on this the 13th day of August, 2024).
Digitally
signed by
MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
2024.08.13
16:16:00
(H.A.Mohan)
+0530
XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and
Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
71 Spl.C.C.123/2020 ORDER ON SENTENCE The Learned PP submitted that, having regard to the gravity of the offence, since the above said accused persons have committed serious offence that too with an intention to defeat the very purpose and object behind in Notification dtd.8.11.2016, issued for demonitisation of currency notes of Rs.1000 and 500 for the purpose of curbing the black money in the system, they have committed the crime, therefore, no leniency can be shown to them. Their poverty, back ground and no antecedents are not the criteria to impose lesser sentences, when statute prescribes sentence of life 72 Spl.C.C.123/2020 imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment, upto 10 years for the offence punishable u/s.395 of IPC. Even for offence of 120B of IPC also same sentence is required to be imposed. Accordingly, prayed to impose higher punishment for the purpose of sending a strong message to these type of persons for refraining themselves to involve in these type of crimes.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 & 11 in his memo has submitted that there is no antecedents against these accused persons. Accused have not used any lethal weapons and not caused any bodily injury. Therefore, there is no strong circumstances to impose higher punishment and accordingly, prayed to impose lesser sentence.
The learned counsel for accused No.5, 8 to 10, 73 Spl.C.C.123/2020 12 & 14 also submitted that since accused persons came from poor and agricultural back ground and having their parents, wife and children to take care of them, therefore prayed to impose lesser punishment.
In the light of the said arguments, I have considered the request of the learned counsel for the accused persons. Having regard to the facts involved in the case, of course, there is no material to show that there are antecedents against these accused persons. It is also a fact that these accused persons came from poor back ground and not highly educated. But, that fact is not a ground to impose lesser punishment. That apart the statute itself has prescribed imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years for the offence punishable u/s.395 of IPC, therefore, this court has 74 Spl.C.C.123/2020 no discretion to impose lesser punishment particularly, when these accused persons have fabricated wret papers in order to show them as original currency notes in order to induce the witnesses to make payment in the form of Rs.2000 currency notes, by assuring them that if Rs.2000 currency notes are given, 20% extra amount will be paid in the demonitised currency notes. Further there is a clear evidence to show that the attempt made by accused persons was pre-determined and preplanned and accordingly, made the witnesses to believe that they are going to exchange the currency in an isolated area and when the witnesses believed or with an intention to have a wrongful gain if possible, these accused persons, as per their preplan, wrongfully restrained the movement of the car and by throwing eggs to the front glass and 75 Spl.C.C.123/2020 thereafter by opening the door, thrown chilly powder and robbed the currency notes of Rs.67,50,000/-. Since accused persons were more than five members, the ingredients of the offence for which charges were made, have been clearly proved by the prosecution. Therefore, when statute itself has prescribed the sentences and since the offence committed by the accused persons is against the intention of the Central Government to curb the black money and they have also utilised lakhs of Rupees for themselves, the request of the learned counsels for the accused cannot be considered by this court. What ever punishment prescribed by the statute is required to be imposed by this court.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since dacoity was not committed for 76 Spl.C.C.123/2020 murder, I am of the opinion that life imprisonment is not required to be imposed. On the other hand, if rigorous imprisonment of six years is imposed against accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 4 for the offence punishable u/s.395 of IPC along with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, that would meet the ends of justice.
Further sentence of 4 years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each if imposed that would meet the ends of justice.
Further, for the offence punishable u/s.120B of IPC also same sentence as that of the offence u/s.395 of IPC is required to be imposed. Hence 6 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each is imposed for the offence punishable u/s.120B r/w Sec.395 of IPC.
77 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Further, for the offence punishable u/s.471 of IPC, since it is established that duplicate currency notes were prepared for the purpose of committing the offence, Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each is required to be imposed against each of the accused persons.
For the offence punishable u/s.489(B) of IPC also, same punishment to that of the offence punishable u/s.395 of IPC is prescribed by the statute. Therefore same imprisonment is required to be imposed, as imposed to the offence punishable u/s.395 of IPC, ie., six years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each is imposed. For the offence punishable u/s.341 of IPC Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month without fine if imposed that would meet the ends of 78 Spl.C.C.123/2020 justice.
Further, for giving the place for harbouring the crime to commit the offence and preparation for committing the offence is also a serious offence. The statute prescribed punishment of upto three years and also a fine if main offence punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extent to 10years is prescribed. Here, in this case the offences committed by the accused persons is liable for punishment for life or rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years. Therefore, three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each shall be imposed for the offence punishable u/s.212 r/w 120B of IPC.
Further, since the vehicles have already been ordered to be released in favour of the respective owners, the said order shall be made absolute.
79 Spl.C.C.123/2020 With regard to currency notes of Rs.54,11,000/- seized by Kirugavalu Police, which is kept in fixed deposit in the Enforcement Directorate case (Spl.CC.233/2018), as per orders of the court in that case, since there is no claim from the witnesses and more over, they also made an attempt to cheat the Central Government, as per offer made by the accused persons, to have wrongful gain and that was intended to defeat the very decision taken by the Central Government to curb the black money. Therefore these witnesses are also equally responsible, even though case has not been registered against them. Therefore, they are not entitled to get back the amount. They also should suffer for the illegality committed by them. This amount shall be confiscated to State. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
80 Spl.C.C.123/2020
ORDER
Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are
sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of six years along with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for 18 months.
Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 120B r/w Sec.395 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further under go simple imprisonment 81 Spl.C.C.123/2020 for 18 months.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo 4 years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Further Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.471 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo six years 82 Spl.C.C.123/2020 rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.489(B) of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable u/s.341 of IPC.
Further Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.212 r/w 120B of IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The order regarding release of vehicles 83 Spl.C.C.123/2020 in favour of respective owners is made absolute.
Further, M.O.1 TO 11 being worthless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Further, M.O.12 to 21 shall be confiscated to State and put to auction, after the appeal period is over.
The amount of Rs.54,11,000/- seized, shall be confiscated to State Government.
The period of custody already undergone by the Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14, if any shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
84 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Office to furnish free copy of the judgment to the Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 forthwith.
The efforts of Learned Public
Prosecutor to conduct the fair trial is
appreciated.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then signed by me on this 13 th day of July, 2024). Digitally signed by MOHAN Date:
MOHAN 2024.08.13
16:15:46
(H.A.Mohan) +0530
XXXII A.C.C. & S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION P.Ws C.Ws Name P.W.1 CW1 Srinivas P.W.2 CW2 Srinivas R. P.W.3 CW3 Lingaraju P P.W.4 CW4 Vinukumar S.B. 85 Spl.C.C.123/2020 PW.5 CW5 Smt.Manjula PW.6 CW6 D.N.Yogananda @ Yogesh PW.7 CW7 Vinay T @ Vinu PW.8 CW9 Sridhar Gowda PW.9 CW10 Kiran PW.10 CW11 Shivanna PW.11 CW14 Hanumantha C.B. PW.12 CW15 Anand PW.13 CW13 Murthy G.J. PW.14 CW16 Swamy.M. PW.15 CW17 Karigowda PW.16 CW18 Jayaram PW.17 CW19 Somashekar PW.18 CW20 KR.Kumar PW.19 CW23 Renuka Aradya PW.20 CW26 Gurumallesh PW.21 CW28 R.N.Devaraj PW.22 CW30 N.Rudragowda PW.23 CW31 Nagaraju PW.24 CW32 Shambugowda PW.25 CW33 Madaiah PW.26 CW34 CN.Manu @ Imran 86 Spl.C.C.123/2020 PW.27 CW41 Somashekar PW.28 CW42 Srinivas G.K. PW.29 CW43 Narendra MN.
PW30 CW44 Pavan Raj K.N.
PW31 CW27 Puttasway
PW32 CW45 Manikanta K.N.
PW33 CW46 Sunil Kumar G.S.
PW34 CW47 M.J.Appugowda
PW35 CW48 Devaraju
PW36 CW50 Madegowda
PW37 CW21 Mahadevappa
PW38 CW24 Chikkerappa
PW39 CW25 Puttaraju
PW40 CW29 H.E.Puttaswamy
PW41 CW49 C.J.Prathab
PW42 CW52 Bandegegowda
PW43 CW54 Channaberesh
PW44 CW08 Ganesh E
PW45 CW40 Chethan Kumar.M.P.
PW46 CW51 Bandegaiah
PW47 CW22 V.L.Girish
87 Spl.C.C.123/2020
PW48 CW56 M.C.Ramesh
PW49 CW71 Raju
PW50 CW55 Maruthi Prasanna B.V.
PW51 CW53 Anil Raj
PW52 CW74 Srikanth R
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Exhibit No. Description of exhibited document Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar dtd.14.12.2016 Ex.P.2(a - c) Signature of witnesses Ex.P.3 to 6 Photographs of Car bearing No.KA.51.B.0887 Ex.P.7 Photographs of Currency ( 41 Nos.) Ex.P.7(a) CD of Currency photographs Ex.P.8 Photograph of motor Bike No.KA.02.J.3007 Ex.P.9 Photograph of Tractor Ex.P.9(a) CD of Tractor Ex.P.10 Statement of PW3 u/s.161(3) Cr.PC Ex.P.11 Photographs of car bearing No.KA.50-4166 88 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Ex.P.12 Photograph of motor bike No.KA.55.V.8571 Ex.P.13 Carton box of Material objects Ex.P.14 Statement of CW4 u/s.161(3) Cr.PC Photographs of motor bike No.KA.55.L.9096 (4 Ex.P.15 Nos.) Ex.P.16 Statement of PW5 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.17 Statement of PW6 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.18 Statement of PW7 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.19 Statement of PW9 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.20 Statement of PW10 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.21 Statement of PW11 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.22 Statement of PW12 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.23 Statement of PW13 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.24 Statement of PW14 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.25 Statement of PW15 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.26 Statement of PW16 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.27 Statement of PW17 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.28 Statement of PW18 u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.30 Spot Mahazar dtd.13.12.2016 Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.30(c) Signature of PW48 Ex.P.30(d) Signature of PW49 89 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Spot and Seizure mahazar of Vehicle and Cash Ex.P.31 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.31(a) Signatures of PW21 & 31 &(b) Spot & Seizure mahazar of Vehicle & cash Ex.P.32 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of witness Ex.P32(b) Signature of PW31 Spot & seizure mahazar of vehicle & cash Ex.P.33 dtd.12.1.2017 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of witness, PW25 & 26 to (c) Seizure mahazar of vehicle, cash and Chilli Powder Ex.P.34 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.34a) Signature of PW22 & 40 &(b) Seizure mahazar of vehicle, cash and chilli powder Ex.P.35 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.35(a) Signatures of PW22 & 40 &(b) Ex.P.36 Spot mahazar dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW23 & 24 &(b) Ex.P.37 Photographs of Two Wheeler (4 Nos.) Ex.P.38 Statement of witness C.Madaiah Ex.P.39 Spot mahazar dtd.6.2.2017 Ex.P.40 Seizure mahazar of vehicle dtd.13.3.2017 Ex.P.41 Seizure mahazar of vehicle dtd.14.3.2017 Ex.P.42 Statement of PW27 90 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Ex.P.43 Statement of PW28 Ex.P.44 Statement of PW29 Ex.P.45 Statement of PW31 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.46 Statement of PW32 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.47 Statement of PW33 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.48 Statement of PW34 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.49 Statement of PW35 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.50 Statement of PW36 U/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.P.51 Seizure mahazar dtd.27.12.2016 Ex.P.51(a) Seizure Mahazar dtd.1.8.2023 & Sign of PW38 Ex.P.52 Seizure mahazar dtd.27.12.2016 Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW38 Ex.P.52(b) Signature of witness Ex.P.53 Statement of witness dtd.10.3.2017 Ex.P.54 Statement of witness dtd.14.3.2017 Ex.P.55 Statement of witness dtd.18.3.2017 Ex.P.56 Statement of witness dtd.14.12.2016 Ex.P.57 Statement of witness dtd.14.12.2016 Ex.P.58 Statement of witness dtd.14.3.2017 Ex.P.59 Report of CPC 441 - marked with consent Letter dtd.27.12.2016 to CPI, Malavalli by PSI Ex.P.60 Kirugavalu PS - marked with consent Letter dtd.27.12.2016 of DCPI Section Mandya to Ex.P.61 CPI, Malavalli Rural Circle - marked with consent 91 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Ex.P.62 Vodafone Call Data Records - marked with consent Ex.P.63 Written report dtd.12.12.2016 Ex.P.63(a) Signatures of PW48 & 49 &(b) Ex.P.64 Acknowledgment dtd.12.12.2016 Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.65 P.F.No.125/2016 Ex.P.65(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.66 FIR Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW49 Ex.P.67 Report of witnesses Ex.P.67(a) Signatures &(b) Ex.P.68 Statement of PW51 Ex.P.69 P.F.No.127/2016 dtd.27.12.2016 Ex.P.69(a) Statement of PW52 Ex.P.70 P.F.No.128/2016 dtd.27.12.2016 Ex.P.70(a) Signature of PW52 Ex.P.71 & FSL reports 72 Ex.P.73 P.F.No.129/2016 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.74 P.F.No.130/2016 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.75 P.F.No.131/2016 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.76 P.F.No.132/2016 dtd.29.12.2016 Ex.P.77 Voluntary statement of accused No.1 92 Spl.C.C.123/2020 dtd.13.12.2016 Ex.P.77(a) Signature of accused Ex.P.78 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 Ex.P.78(a) Signature of accused Ex.P.79 Voluntary statement of accused No.5 Ex.P.79(a) Signature of accused Ex.P.80 Voluntary statement of accused No.12 Ex.P.80(a) Signature of accused Ex.P.81 Voluntary statement of accused No.14 Ex.P.81(a) Signature of accused Ex.P.82 P.F.No.1/2017 dtd.12.1.2017 Ex.P.82(a) Signature Ex.P.83 R.T.C Copy Ex.P.84 R.B.I. Order Ex.P.85 Mahazar dtd.4.6.2017 Ex.P.85(a) Signature LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED D.Ws Name Date NIL 93 Spl.C.C.123/2020 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED Exhibit Description of exhibited document No. NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION M.O. No. Description of Material Objects M.O.1 Old currency notes in the middle covered with wret papers (5 bundles) M.O.2 Old currency notes in the middle covered with wret papers (5 bundles) M.O.3 Old currency notes in the middle covered with wret papers (5 bundles) M.O.4 Old currency notes in the middle covered with wret papers (5 bundles) M.O.5 Old currency notes in the middle covered with wret papers (5 bundles) M.O.6 A packet of Chilli Powder in a small cloth bag M.O.6(a) Signature of witness M.O.7 2 MTR company chilli power (2 Empty covers) M.O.8 Steel Scale 94 Spl.C.C.123/2020 M.O.9 Cutter of Rose colour M.O.10 Chilli Powder packets in a while bag M.O.10( Signatures
a)&(b) M.O.11 Black colour bag M.O.12 White colour Samsung Phone M.O.13 Black colour Lava Company phone M.O.14 Gold colour Samsung company phone M.O.15 Black colour M.I.company phone M.O.16 White colour phone M.O.17 Samsung company phone M.O.18 Black colour Micromax company phone M.O.19 Black colour Karbon company phone M.O.20 White colour phone of Titel Company M.O.21 White colour Karbon company phone Digitally signed by MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2024.08.1316:15:17 +0530
(H.A.Mohan) XXXII Addl.C.C. & S.J. and Special Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.
95 Spl.C.C.123/2020 Orders on sentence pronounced in the open court vide separate orders. The operative portion reads as under:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years along with fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further under go simple imprisonment for 18 months.Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12
& 14 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 120B r/s Sec.395 of IPC. In default of payment of fine,
96 Spl.C.C.123/2020 they shall further under go simple imprisonment for 18 months.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo 4 years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Further Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.471 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.489(B) 97 Spl.C.C.123/2020 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months.
Further, Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable u/s.341 of IPC.
Further Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 are sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.212 r/w 120B of IPC.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The order regarding release of vehicles in favour of respective owners is made absolute.
Further, M.O.1 to 11 being worthless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Further, M.O.12 to 21 shall be confiscated to State 98 Spl.C.C.123/2020 and put to auction, after the appeal period is over.
The amount of Rs.54,11,000/- seized, shall be confiscated to State Government.
The period of custody already undergone by the Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14, if any shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to furnish free copy of the judgment to the Accused No.1 to 5, 8 to 12 & 14 forthwith.
The efforts of Learned Public Prosecutor to conduct the fair trial is appreciated.
Digitally signedby MOHAN Date:
MOHAN 2024.08.13
16:15:31
(H.A.Mohan)
+0530
XXXII A.C.C. & S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI & ED Cases, Bengaluru.