Bangalore District Court
State By Thyagarajanagara P.S vs No.1 Robbed The Gold Mangalya Chain From ... on 2 August, 2022
1
C.C.No.8696/2012
KABC030088782012
Presented on : 31-03-2012
Registered on : 31-03-2012
Decided on : 02-08-2022
Duration : 10 years, 4 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 2nd day of AUGUST, 2022.
Present: Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.
C.C. No.8696/2012
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
1. Complainant: State by Thyagarajanagara P.S.
V/S
2. Accused: A1 Shiva @ Shivaraju (SPLIT UP)
S/o Lakshmaiah,
Aged 32 years,
R/at Barkanala,
ooliyaru hobli,
Chikkanayanakahalli,
Tumkuru Dist.
A2 Pyarajan
S/o Noor Ahamed,
Aged 25 years,
2
C.C.No.8696/2012
Narayanappa House,
A.C.P. Circle,
Jigani, Anekal Tq.,
Bangalore Dist.
3.Date of offence: 22112011
4. Offences complained of: U/s.392 of IPC.
5. Plea: Accused No.2 pleaded not guilty.
6. Final Order: Accused No.2 is Acquitted.
7. Date of Order: 02072022.
*****
The PoliceInspector, Thyagarajanagara Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2
for the offence punishable U/s. 392 of IPC. During the course of trial,
the accused No.1 remained absconding, hence, case against accused
No.1 is split up. Case proceeded only against A2.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
That on 22112011 at about 545 a.m., within the limits of
Thyagarajanagara P.S. the accused persons arrived on vehicle bearing
No.KA42H784 at N.R.Colony, 8th Cross Road, 3rd Main and the
accused No.1 robbed the gold mangalya chain from the neck of CW1
3
C.C.No.8696/2012
and fled away with accused No.2 thereby the accused persons have
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet, my predecessor in the office has took the cognizance of
the alleged offences and furnished copy of the prosecution papers to
the accused persons. During the course of trial, the accused No.1
remained absconding, hence, case against accused No.1 is split up.
Charge for the offence P/U/S.392 of IPC., was framed by my
predecessor in office, read over and explained to the accused No.2.
The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined Ten
witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked six documents at Ex.P1
to P6. The statement of accused No.2 as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.
is recorded. In which, accused No.2 denied all the incriminating
circumstances appeared against him. The accused No.2 submits no
defence evidence and the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the
prosecution and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the
materials available on record.
4
C.C.No.8696/2012
6. The PW1 Sathyavathi is the complainant as well as victim,
she has deposed in her evidence that herself and her husband use to
go walking regularly, that on 22112011 at 5 a.m., her husband had
some urgent works, hence he said her that he will joint later, hence
she alone left for walking, while returning at 5.45 a.m., at NR colony,
there was power cut, near the garbage a person was smoking beedi,
she started moving fast, he came from her behind and snatched her
chain from her neck, due to panic she screamed, he robbed half of her
chain. She further deposed that immediately she rushed to the home,
and informed the matter to her husband later they went to police
station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, and the police have visited
the spot, conducted spot Panchanama as per Ex.P2. After lapse of one
month police called them to Siddapura P,S, and shown torn chain
and the accused, she identified and given statement.
7. The PW2 Sai Ram, Electrician has deposed in his evidence
that during November 2011 his sister left for walking at about 0545
06 a.m. at that time, at N R colony some body snatched his sister
chain, police conducted Panchanama as per Ex.P2 and he identified
signature therein as per Ex.P2(b).
5
C.C.No.8696/2012
8. The PW3 Siri has deposed in his evidence that he is running
a Pawn Broker shop by name Ramdev. He further deposed that in
front of his shop there is Parameshwara Bankers, the police have
visited and took his signature to a Panchanama, but nothing was
seized in his presence. He identified the seizer Panchanama as per
Ex.P3 and identified his signature therein as per Ex.P3(a). This
witness was treated hostile by the prosecution and cross examined this
witness. During the course of cross examination by the learned
Sr.APP., he denied the suggestion made to him and during the course
of cross examination by learned counsel for accused he stated that he
is seeing the accused for the first time before the court and admits
that he do not know the contents of Ex.P3.
9. The PW4 Nagaraju, has deposed in his evidence that on 09
012012 at 1015 p.m. when he was in Station, the Sri C.R.
Ravishanker, PI gave written complaint, he received and registered
case in Crime No.06/2012 and submitted F I R to the court. He
further deposed that on the same day, PI C.R.Ravishanker handed
over the seized properties under seizure Panchanama and same were
wrapped in white cloth sealed with letter "A" and he identified the
6
C.C.No.8696/2012
same. On the same day four persons were produced before him
among them one accused was present before the court, he identified
him, he recorded statement of witnesses. It is further deposed that on
10012012 when he recorded the voluntary statement and accused,
he revealed that he was involved in some other crime, he produced
the accused before court, took police custody, on 12012012 as led by
him to the Parameshwar Bankers, Hebbagodi along with the panchas,
seized gold chain under seizure Panchanama as per Ex.P3. On the
same day, he called CW1 to the police station, shown him the stolen
articles and the accused, he identified the accused.
10. The PW5 M.Shivachandrapa, Police Head Constable, PW6
Jagadeesh B.R., Police Constable and PW7 Balaraj Nayak. Police
Head Constable have deposed in their evidence that on 09012012 at
about 0800 am., their PI received information that 5 persons with
an auto and two wheeler were waiting waiting to commit dacoity, as
such his Inspector B.S. Angadi in his Jeep took themselves and other
to the above said spot and waiting at some distance. The PI sent
Ayyappa ahead to make signal about accused presence, Ayyappa gave
signal, they all went and surrounded near Kalyani, caught hold four
7
C.C.No.8696/2012
persons, conducted Panchanama between 845 to 945 p.m. with the
help of search light and seized Autorikshaw and Hero honda vehicle,
knife, club, iron rod chilli power packed from their possession, and
brought to police station and they identified the accused Parejan.
before the court.
11. The PW9 Sreedhara has deposed in his evidence that CW1
is his wife. On 22112011 at 530 a.m. to 6.30 CW1 left for walking
at NR colony, 8th cross road, at that time, accused snatched gold chain
from her neck, on the same day, at 9 to 10 am. Police conducted
Panchanama as per Ex.P2, and identified the signature therein as per
Ex.P2(c ).
12. The PW10 Durga Ram, Pawn broker deposed in his
evidence that on 12012012 police visited his Parameshwara bankers,
at Hebbagodi, Shivakumar came and pledged gold chain and took
Rs.30,000/. Police said to produce the stolen gold chain, he produced
gold chain before police wg. 20 grms., under seizure Panchanama as
per Ex.P3 and he signed the Panchanama as per Ex.P3(c) and he can
identify the accused and the chain.
8
C.C.No.8696/2012
13. It is well settled principle of law that in order to held a
person guilty for a offence punishable under section 392 of IPC., the
chain link must be unbroken. The confessional statement itself hit by
the provisions of Section 25 of Indian evidence Act. If the stolen
articles are recovered from the accused, then only the said part of
confessional statement in respect of recovery of stolen articles is
admissible in evidence. I have carefully perused the records, the case
of the prosecution is that, on 22112011 at about 545 a.m., within
the limits of Thyagarajanagara P.S. the accused persons arrived on
vehicle bearing No.KA42H784 at N.R.Colony, 8th Cross Road, 3rd
Main and the accused No.1 robbed the gold mangalya chain from the
neck of CW1 and fled away with accused No.2.
14. That on 0901201226 on the credible information,
Sri.Ravishankathe Police inspector of Thyagarajnagar did caught hold
the accused No.1 and 2 along with other two persons under suspicious
manner near Siddhapur Kalyani and produced then before the CW14
in Cr.N0.062012. On enquiry accused persons revealed that they
have snatched the chain of a women at 8 th cross NR Colony in the
month of November 2011 and pledged the same in Paramaeswara
9
C.C.No.8696/2012
Bankers Hebbagodi. Accordingly they have revealed their involvement
in the present case, based on the above voluntary statements, the
CW14 recovered the gold chains from the accused under seizure
Panchanama as per Ex.P3 in the presence of CW4 and 5.
15. The CW14 is examined as PW4 and seizer Panchanama is
marked as Ex.P3, The CW5 Siri is examined as PW3, she turned
hostile towards the case of prosecution. The PW1 who is the owner of
stolen property, she was called to the police station so as to identify
the accused and the stolen property. Accordingly she went to the
police station and identify the accused and stolen property and gave
statement before the IO. As per the case of prosecution, when the
accused No.1 tried to snatched the chain, PW1 screemed loudly, the
accused No.1 snatched her half chain. During the cross examination of
PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused the she admitted that,
she is seeing the accused at he first time after he snatched her chain
and she did not gave any statement before the police. It is further
admitted that, the chain which is snatched by the accused was 2025
grams in wight but the chain given by the police was different.
10
C.C.No.8696/2012
16. As admitted by the PW1, she did not identify the accused
and the gold chain and she did not gave any statement before the IO.
as admitted by the PW1 the gold chain snatched by the accused No.1
and the gold chain recovered by the I.O. are quite different. Thus the
prosecution failed to prove the seizure Panchanama in accordance
with law. But the oral testimony of PW4 about seizure Panchanama
is not supported by any other independent witness. Therefore, the
confessional statements of the accused are not admissible in evidence.
Hence the case of the prosecution is appears to be doubtful.
17. In criminal case guilt of the accused shall be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and in this instant case the prosecution has failed to
prove the recovery of stolen articles beyond reasonable doubts.
Though the PW2 and 9 have deposed about the preparation of spot
Panchanama, during their cross examination by the learned counsel
for the accused they have admitted that they have put their signatures
to the Ex.P3 spot Panchanama in the police station. As such the spot
Panchanama is not proved Panchanama is not proved by the
prosecution in accordance with law. The available evidence on record
are not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence
11
C.C.No.8696/2012
punishable U/s.392 of I.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove
the guilty of the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
the accused No.1 is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
Office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, as case against A1 is split up.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 2nd July, 2022) ( B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Sathyavathi
PW2 : Sai Ram
PW3 : Giri
12
C.C.No.8696/2012
PW4 : Nagaraju
PW5 : Shivachandrappa
PW6 : Jagadeesh B.R.
PW7 : Balaram Nayak
PW8 : Shivanna
PW9 : Sreedhar
PW10 : Durgaram
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Panchaname Ex.P.2a : Signature of the PW1 Ex.P.3 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3a : Signature of PW3 Ex.P.4 : Report Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.6 : Panchaname Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of witness.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE. 13 C.C.No.8696/2012 14 C.C.No.8696/2012 02082022 Judgment.
Judgment pronounced in the Open court (vide separately).
ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC. The bail bond of accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
Office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, as case against A1 is split up.
XXXVII ACMM.,B'lore.