Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

4. Name Of The 1)Ramachandra @ Ramu vs S/O. Late Ningaiah on 5 January, 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.

       Dated this the     5th    day of January 2017.

          Present : Sri.Mohamed Ashraf Aris, B.A., LL.B.
                VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.

                 C.C. NO. 29745/2014

      JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
     1.    Sl. No. of the Case   29745/2014

     2. The date of              3/5/2011
        commission of the
        offence
     3. Name of the              State Chandra Layout P.S.
        complainant

     4. Name of the              1)Ramachandra @ Ramu,
        accused                  S/o. late Ningaiah, 26 years,
                                 Near Mahaveer Apartments,
                                 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar,
                                 Kengeri Upanagar,
                                 Bengaluru.

                                 2)Manjunath,
                                 S/o.Krishnappa, 22 years,
                                 No.1020, Papular Road,
                                 Valagerehalli, Kengeri
                                 Upanagar, Bengaluru.

     5. The offence              U/sec.392 of IPC.
        complained of or
        proved
                                2              C.C. NO. 29745/2014




         6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
            and his
            examination
         7. Final Order         Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
                                Accused-1 & 2 are acquitted.

         8. Date of such order       05/01/2017
            For the following:-

                            JUDGMENT

This is the charge sheet filed by the PI, Chandra Layout P.S. against the accused -1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.392 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 03.05.2011 at about 12.45 p.m. accused -1 and 2 came in the car near Hary's Chicken Center, within the limits of Chandra Layout P.S., and put CW.1 under threat and forcibly snatched cash of Rs. 8,000/-, one bracelet, gold chain and 2 gold rings and thereby committed the alleged offence.

3. Accused-1 and 2 are on bail. Copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. The accused 3 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 pleaded not guilty to the charge read over to them. Prosecution examined PWs:1 and 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6. Accused have been questioned u/sec. 313 of Cr.PC., accused have not led any defence evidence.

4. Heard arguments from both the sides .

5. The points that arise for determination are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 03.05.2011 at about 12.45 p.m. accused -1 and 2 came in the car near Hary's Chicken Center, within the limits of Chandra Layout P.S., and put CW.1 under threat and forcibly snatched cash of Rs. 8,000/-, one bracelet, gold chain and 2 gold rings and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.392 of IPC.?

2) What order?

6. The Answer to the above points are as follows:

Point No.1 In the negative Point No.2 As per final order for the following:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:-

CW.1 has been examined as PW.1. He has stated in his evidence that on 03/05/2011 at 12.45 pm when he was going to the factory in his car and when he reached near Hary's Chicken center, Nagarabhavi, two persons came in a bike and restrained him by keeping the bike infront of his car and thereafter picked up quarrel with him and entered his car and asked him to raise the glass windows and threatened and asked to give the amount and the gold ornaments, which he was wearing and that out of fear he gave those items and cash and thereafter those persons ran away from the place. He has stated that at the time of incident he felt giddiness and he could not 5 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 identify those 2 persons properly. He has stated about lodging the complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police coming to the spot and drawing the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. He has stated that after about 2 - 2½ months police called him to the police station and showed the gold items. The photo of those items is marked as Ex.P.3. He has been treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Sr.APP, but he has not identified the accused.

8.CW.3 has been examined as PW.2. He is an attesting witness to the spot mahazar, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he has signed on Ex.P2 in the police station.

9.CW.4 has been examined as PW.4 and he is the receiver of stolen property. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that on 24/10/2011 2 persons were brought to his shop by the police. He has stated that those two persons had come to 6 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 his shop earlier 2- 3 months prior to that date and had sold gold bracelet weighing 25 grams. He has stated that on 24/10/2011 the police seized the said bracelet and he has identified the said photograph Ex.P3, which is the photo of the bracelet. He has stated that, since many years have lapsed he cannot identify those persons and he has not been able to identify the accused. He has been treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Sr.APP, but he has not supported the prosecution case regarding identification of the accused.

10.CW.7 has been examined as PW.3. He is an attesting witness to the seizure mahazars Ex.P3 to 5. But he has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.

11.CW.12 has done the part investigation has been examined as PW.5. He has stated about receiving the complaint as per Ex.P1 and registering the FIR as per 7 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 Ex.P6 and drawing the mahazar as per Ex.P2. The further investigation has been done by CW.13.

12.The other witnesses i.e., CW.5 to 11 and 13 did not turn up in spite of taking coercive steps. Hence, the prayer of Sr.APP was rejected and side closed. The evidence of PW.1 to 5 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The main witnesses have turned hostile and did not identify the accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and Point No.1 is answered in the negative.

13. Point No.2:- In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused- 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence U/sec.392 of IPC.

Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 5th day of January 2017.) (Mohamed Ashraf Aris) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.

Annexure:

1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:

P. Ws:

1. M.Narayana Swamy

2. K.Rani

3. Ram

4. Pradeep Kumar.G

5. A.B.Rajendra Kumar.

2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:

1. Complaint

2. Spot Mahazar

3. Document

4. Document

5. Document

6. Statement of PW.3.

3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- -NIL -

4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -

VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.

10 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 11 C.C. NO. 29745/2014 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused- 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence U/sec.392 of IPC.

Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled.

VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.