Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Annapoorneshwari Ps vs A2-Praveena Alias Thippe on 16 January, 2024

KABC010101252020




                      Presented on : 15-06-2020
                      Registered on : 15-06-2020
                      Decided on : 16-01-2024
                      Duration : 3 years, 7 months, 1 days
  BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
           JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
                   (CCH­67)

      DATED: This the 16th day of January, 2024

                       PRESENT

             Sri. S. NATARAJ, BAL., LLB.,
           LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
                       Bengaluru.

                   SC.No.601 of 2020

COMPLAINANT :        State by:
                     Annapoorneshwari Nagara        Police
                     Station,
                     Bengaluru.
                     (By Public Prosecutor.)
                     /Vs/

ACCUSED :            A3. Naveen Kumar,
                     S/o Narasimhamurthy,
                     Aged about 20 years,
                     R/at No.27/27,
                     Near Government School,
                     Malagala, Bengaluru City.
                     (By Sri.SLN, Advocate.)
                                2               SC.No.601/2020




                         A2. Praveena @ Thippe
                         (Split up)

                         A1 (split up in CC5381/2020)
                         A4 to 6 (split up in CC1190/2020)

DATE OF:

Occurrence of offence       : 11.06.2017

Commencement of trial : 31.03.2023

Closing of trial            : 22.12.2023

Name of the complainant: Sri.Govindaraj, ASI

Offence alleged             : Under Sections 399, 402 IPC

Opinion of the Judge        : Charge leveled against the
                              accused are not proved.

Sentence or order           : Acquittal.


                           JUDGMENT

PW­2/Sri.Paramesh the then PSI of Annapoorneshwarinagara police station submitted charge sheet against 6 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 IPC before the V ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. The prosecution case in brief are as follows:

Accused No.3 along with other accused persons with intention to commit dacoity on 11.6.2017 at about 8:30 3 SC.No.601/2020 p.m assembled at Ramakrishnappa Garden Road, Malagala and making preparation to commit dacoity by holding deadly weapons, thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. PW­4/Sri.Govindaraj, the then ASI, has received the information about the accused making preparation to commit dacoity and assembled at the spot, he secured panchas and staff, rushed to the spot, surrounded the persons and arrested 4 persons and two person escaped, seized weapons at MO­1 to 4 under mahazar. Thereafter, he prepared report at Ex.P­3 and produced properties and accused persons before PW­2, who in turn, registered the case, arrested the accused persons, recorded the statement of witnesses, seized articles subjected to PF, after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 before the committal court.

4. The committal court after taking cognizance of the offences in CC.No.23279/2017 the presence of accused Nos.1 to 6 was secured. The copies of charge sheet were furnished. Accused No.1, 3, 4 and 6 are on bail. Accused No.2 is in JC represented through his counsel. Accused 4 SC.No.601/2020 No.5 absconding. The case was committed in so for as accused Nos.2 and 3 and the case against accused Nos.1, 4 to 6 was split up.

5. After receipt of records case has been registered as SC.601/2020 and case was made over to this court. The presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 was secured. Subsequently, accused No.2 in the midst of trial remained absent, case against him was split up and split up case SC.1868/2022 was registered. In so for as accused No.3 is concerned he is on bail represented through his counsel. The charges were framed against accused No.3, he pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the case against accused No.3 has examined in all PWs 1 to 4 witnesses, Exs.P­1 to 5 documents and MO­1 to 4 are marked. Statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, accused No.3 denied the incriminating material appeared against him he has not chosen to lead defence evidence nor produced any documents.

5 SC.No.601/2020

7. Heard arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused.

8. Out of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arose for the due consideration of this Court are;

1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 11.6.2017 at about 8:30 pm accused No.3 along with other accused assembled at Ramakrishnappa Garden Road, Malagala within the jurisdiction of Annapoorneshwari Nagara police station, with a common intention were fond making preparation of committing dacoity and found in possession of deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence under Section 399 read with Section 34 IPC?

2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.3 along with other accused on the afore said date, time and place with common intention were found assembled with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity and thereby committed an offence under Section 402 read with Section 34 IPC?

3. What Order?

9. The findings of this Court on the above points are;

Point No.1 and 2 : In Negative.

Point No.3: As per the final order for the 6 SC.No.601/2020 following reasons.

REASONS

10. POINT Nos.1 and 2 :­ Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

11. It is specific case of the prosecution that accused No.3 along with other accused were assembled on 11.6.2017 at about 8:30 pm on Ramakrishnappa Garden Road, Malagala, making preparation to commit dacoity by holding weapons in their hands.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that PWs 2 to 4 are the police officials though the independent witness are not examined there is no reason to discard the testimony of police officials. In the cross examination of witnesses nothing is elicited and prayed for convicting the accused.

13. The learned counsel for accused submitted that evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is contradictory, the independent witness are not examined, there are no cogent evidence to 7 SC.No.601/2020 believe that the accused were found in possession of deadly weapons and assembled to commit dacoity from public and prayed for acquittal.

14. Upon considering the submissions of both sides, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 399 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the preparations were being made by the accused to commit dacoity. In other words 5 persons had joined and made preparations necessary to commit dacoity. The evidence to prove the above facts may be direct or circumstantial. The place and time chosen by the accused is one of the relevant circumstances. The steps taken or preparations made by the accused to commit robbery can be inferred by their conduct and possession of weapons/incriminating materials to commit dacoity.

15. In the instant case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW­4/Govindaraj the ASI who received information and PW­3/Venkatesh the head constable who had accompanied PW­2 to the spot for raid along with other staff and witnesses. In their evidence, they deposed 8 SC.No.601/2020 that on on 11.6.2017 at about 8:30 pm as per the information they reached spot and observed and found 6 persons in a suspicious manner, raided them, apprehended Tejas, Praveen, Naveen and Ningappa and seized MO­1 to 4 under mahazar. PW­4 produced the accused and properties before PW­2 with report.

16. In the cross­examination of PW­3 it is elicited they observed the spot at a distance of 50 mtrs and the place of incident was dark. They did not hear the conversation of 6 persons.

17. Whereas, PW­4 in his cross­examination has stated that the distance between police station to spot is 2 Kms. Before going for raid they did not conduct personal search, whereas Pw­3 deposed, they conducted personal search. According to PW­4 they observed the spot at a distance of 100 feet. They did not heard the conversation. The accused did not attack them but they tried to ran away.

18. PW­2 who has received the complaint seized properties, arrested accused, recorded statement of 9 SC.No.601/2020 witnesses and submitted charge sheet. He did not visit the spot and not recorded statements of people of surrounding places, he did not have any information before the incident, the photos were not taken in respect of properties. PW­1 Satish is witness to mahazar Ex.P­1, he turned hostile, not supported the prosecution. He denied a raid at the spot and seizure of MOs 1 to 4 in his presence.

19. As per the Judgment in Agar Vs State of Rajasthan 2003 Crl.L.J. 1997 observed that 'To constitute an offence under Section 397 IPC some acts amounting to preparation must be proved'. In the present case the evidence of PWs­ 1 to 4 does not establish any act amounting to preparation for committing dacoity by accused No.3 along with other accused persons.

20. In Joseph Vs state of Kerala AIR 1993 SCW 2900 it is held that ' The prosecution must show that there were persons who had convinced the design of committing dacoity'. The evidence of PWs­2 to 4 there is no cogent and material evidence to believe the case of prosecution that 10 SC.No.601/2020 accused No.3 along with other accused persons had conceived the design for committing dacoity."

21. In Chaturi Yadhav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1412 observed that 'Mere fact that the accused were found at 1:00 a.m. with some of them armed with guns did not prove that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparation to accomplish that object'.

22. After considering the judgments, in the present case PW­4 has received information about alleged presence of accused at the spot making preparation to commit dacoity at 8:15 p.m. he along with staff went to spot and observed the spot at a distance of 100 feet. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the accused No.3 and other accused persons were present at the spot with deadly weapons, it cannot be presumed that they have assembled there to commit dacoity. The prosecution has to prove that the accused were present with intention to commit dacoity and making preparation to commit dacoity from passers by. To substantiate the case of the prosecution the 11 SC.No.601/2020 mahazar witness are not examined by prosecution. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence of independent witness except the evidence of PWs­2 to 4 who are the official witnesses. The seizure of Mos 1 to 4 at the spot from the possession of accused No.3 and other accused is not proved. The testimony of PWs­2 to 4 is not sufficient to hold that accused No.3 and other accused were found in the spot with deadly weapons, making preparation to commit dacoity. The accused armed with weapons did not try to attack the police personal raises a doubt. The prosecution fails to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled for acquittal under Section 399 and 402 IPC. Accordingly, answer point Nos.1 and 2 in Negative.

23. POINT No.3:­ From the above observations, and findings on points No.1 and 2, this Court proceed to pass the following order.

12 SC.No.601/2020

ORDER As per Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3/Naveen Kumar is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 IPC.

The bail bond and the surety bonds executed by and on behalf of A­3 stands canceled, shall be in force for a period of 6 months from this date as per Section 437­A Cr.P.C.

MO­1 to 4 are ordered to be preserved for the purpose of trial against split up case against accused Nos.2 in this case and accused No.1 in CC.No.5381/2020, accused Nos.4 to 6 in CC.No.1190/2020.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th day of January, 2024) (S. NATARAJ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

­:ANNEXURE:­ LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:­ PW.1 Sathish PW.2 Paramesh PW.3 Venkatesh PW.4 Govindaraju LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:­ ­ None ­ 13 SC.No.601/2020 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:­ Ex.P­1 Seizure mahazar Ex.P­1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P­2 Statement of PW2 Ex.P­3 Report Ex.P­3(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P­4 FIR Ex.P­4(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P­5 PF Form No.42/2017 Ex.P­5(a)&(b) Signatures of PW.2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:­ ­ Nil ­ LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:­ MO­1 Wooden club MO­2 Two feet iron machu MO­3 Chilly powder packet MO­4 Knife LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:­ ­ Nil ­ (S. NATARAJ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

14 SC.No.601/2020

The Judgment is pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Order).

ORDER As per Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.3/Naveen Kumar is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 IPC.

The bail bond and the surety bonds executed by and on behalf of A­3 stands canceled, shall be in force for a period of 6 months from this date as per Section 437­A Cr.P.C.

MO­1 to 4 are ordered to be preserved for the purpose of trial against split up case against accused Nos.2 in this case and accused No.1 in CC.No.5381/2020, accused Nos.4 to 6 in CC.No.1190/2020.

LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.