Bangalore District Court
State By Sampigehalli Police vs Md. Mansoor Ulla Hasan on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri Rudolph Pereira B.Com., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of January 2017
C.C. NO.13238/2014
Complainant : State by Sampigehalli Police,
Bengaluru
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Md. Mansoor Ulla Hasan
@ Mansoor s/o Md. Noorulla,
19 yrs, R/at Behind Mujamil
Masjid, Near 2nd Cross of
H.K.B.K. College Front Gate,
Dead End Right Side House,
Govindapura, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru City.
2. Syed Suhail Athif @
Suhail @ Athif - Split up
Date of offence : 28-10-2013
Offence : U/S 392 of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused No-1 pleaded
not guilty
2 CC No.13238/2014
Final order : Accused No-1 Acquitted
Date of Order : 10-01-2017
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.I. of Sampigehalli P.S., Bengaluru has filed this
charge sheet against accused persons for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 28-10-2013 at 1-30 p.m., when CW1 Padma along
with CW2 Bhagya were walking between the 9th and 10th
Cross, 1st Main, MCECHS Layout, Sampigehalli P.S. Limits,
Bengaluru, the accused had robbed her gold mangalya chain
weighing about 32 grams. Thereby the accused committed
the aforesaid offence.
3. The accused No-1 is on bail. After furnishing the
copies of charge sheet, charge was framed, read over and
explained to both the accused persons by my then learned
3 CC No.13238/2014
predecessor. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. However, vide court orders dated 26-08-2016, the
case against accused No-2 is split up and a separate case in
CC No.21493/2016 is registered against him.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all
six witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked the
documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.11. The learned Sr.APP has
given up CW10. The other witnesses i.e., CW4 to 8 and 12
did not turn up before this court inspite of coercive steps
taken by this court. Hence by rejecting the prayer of learned
Sr.APP, this court dropped the said witnesses. Thereafter, the
accused No-1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He
denied the incriminating evidence and submitted that he has
no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Sr.APP
and the learned counsel for accused No-1.
4 CC No.13238/2014
6. Herein, the complainant Padma appeared before the
court as PW1. She has adduced inconsistent evidence about
the alleged incident dated 28-10-2013. The PW1 has clearly
deposed that accused No-1 is not one among the persons who
had robbed her gold chain. She has deposed that she has not
seen the accused and the police did not show the accused in
police station. The prosecution papers would disclose that
the PW1 has identified her chain and the accused was shown
to her and her statement was recorded accordingly as per
Ex.P4. But the PW1 has denied the same and stated that she
has not given any statement to the police inrespect of
identifying the accused as per Ex.P4. The above evidence of
PW1 indicates that there is no corroboration between the
prosecution case and the testimony of this witness. Hence, I
am of the view that the evidence of this witness is not fit for
consideration.
5 CC No.13238/2014
7. The alleged eyewitness Bhagya who is said to be the
sister of PW1 and proceeding along with PW1 during the
alleged incident appeared before the court as PW2. She has
also adduced inconsistent evidence about the alleged incident
dated 28-10-2013. The PW2 has clearly deposed that she has
not seen the accused No-1. The prosecution papers would
disclose that the PW2 has given statement as per Ex.P5
before the police as an eyewitness. But the PW2 has denied
the same and stated that she has not given any statement to
the police as per Ex.P5. Hence, I am of the view that the
evidence of this witness is also not fit for consideration.
8. The alleged spot mahazar witness Nirmala entered
into the witness box as PW3 and supported the case of
prosecution inrespect of Ex.P2 spot mahazar. Since the PW1
and 2 have lead inconsistent evidence before this court, the
evidence of this witness cannot be given much importance.
6 CC No.13238/2014
9. The prosecution has examined three police officials
namely Keshavamurthy, Babu and Anand as PW4 to PW6
respectively. PW4 has deposed about his continuation of
investigation by receiving the case file from CW12 and filing
of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW6 has
deposed inrespect of apprehension of accused on 26-11-2013
and production before the S.H.O. PW5 being the P.I. of
Amruthahalli P.S. at relevant point of time has deposed that
in connection with Crime No.262/2013 of Amruthahalli P.S.,
he has carried out the investigation of the said case and
transferred this case file to Sampigehalli P.S. on the point of
jurisdiction.
10. In theft/robbery cases, what is required to be proved
by prosecution is that the nexus between stolen/robbed article
and accused. But, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution
has failed to secure the presence of seizure mahazar
witnesses inspite of coercive steps taken by this court and the
7 CC No.13238/2014
same is fatal to the case of prosecution. In this view of fact,
the whole case of prosecution has been rendered weak and
hence this court does not deem it proper to base conviction
on the evidence available on record. Hence, viewing from
multi dimensional angle, I hold that there is no sufficient,
positive and material evidence to bring home the guilt of
accused No-1. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
Office is directed to keep the entire records in split up case i.e., CC 8 CC No.13238/2014 No.21493/2016, which is pending against accused No-2.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10-01-2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Padma
P.W.2 : Bhagya
P.W.3 : Nirmala
P.W.4 : G.Keshavamurthy
P.W.5 : Babu
P.W.6 : Anand
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Photograph
Ex.P.4 : Further Statement of PW1
Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P.6 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P.7 : Letter dated 01-01-2014
9 CC No.13238/2014
Ex.P.8 : Voluntary Statement of
Accused No-1 (True Copy) Ex.P.9 : Seizure Mahazar (True Copy) Ex.P.10 : Voluntary Statement of Accused No-2 (True Copy) Ex.P.11 : Report of PW6 (True Copy) List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.10 CC No.13238/2014
10-01-2017 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused No-1 is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
Office is directed to keep the entire records in split up case i.e., CC No.21493/2016, which is pending against accused No-2.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.11 CC No.13238/2014