Bangalore District Court
The Karnataka State Through vs Unknown on 1 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURE
DATED THIS THE ....... DAY OF ....................2016
C.C. No.26153/2014
Present: SRI. CHINNANNAVAR R. S.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURE.
COMPLAINANT : The Karnataka state through
Chamarajpete Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
1. Santosh S/o. Late
Narasimha, Aged about 22
years, R/o. # 57, 5th
Cross, Near Krishnan
Temple, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru.
2. Vinod Shekar S/o. Shekar,
Aged about 21 years, R/o.
#32, 6th Cross, Near
Surekha School,
Buvaneshwari Nagar,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
3. Tippuhusain @ Tippu S/o.
Sabjan, Aged about 22
years, R/o. #10, 7th Cross,
Near Yallamma Temple,
Towns Former, Magadi
Road, Bengaluru.
(Reptd. by Sri.K.E., for A-1, Sri.B.K.R., for A-2,
Sri.A.V.K., for A-3 Advocates )
2 CC.NO.26153/2014
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 13.10.2013
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : Accused were on bail.
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s. 120(B), 379, 468, 471,
474 and 420 of IPC.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 04.06.2016
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 14.06.2016
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(Chinnannavar R. S.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The PSI of Chamarajpet Police Station has filed charge
sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable
U/s. 120(B), 379, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
It is alleged that, on 13/10/2013 between 6.05 to 7.00 p.m.
near Kashiviswanatha temple, 3rd main 5th cross, all the accused
have committed theft of Suzuki Axis Motor Cycle No.KA-41-S-713
worth Rs.37,000/- of CW.1 Smt. Saraswathi, without her consent
and thereby committed offence U/s. 379 R/w. 120(B) of IPC.
It is further alleged that, after committing theft of said
motor cycle A-1 signed/forged signature of Cw.1 on Form No.9,
Form No.29 and 30, clearance certificate, transfer of insurance,
3 CC.NO.26153/2014
and authorization letter and by forging the documents sold said
motor cycle to CW.7 through olx.com and thereby committed
offences U/s. 120(B) 468,471, 474 and 420 of IPC.
3. The first information was filed by the complainant Smt.
Saraswanthi W/o. B.S. Shivaprasad on 18/10/2013 at 12.00 p.m.
before PSI of Yeshawanthpura Police Station by alleging theft of
motor cycle. On the basis of written complaint PSI registered in
crime No.212/2013 for the offences U/s. 379 of IPC. Later it is
alleged that, Motor cycle was sold to CW.7 by fabricating
documents and hence PSI got inserted other sections of IPC,
recorded statements of the witnesses, seized motor cycle,
obtained specimen signature of complainant and sent a
disputed and admitted signature to FSL and after receiving FSL
filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said
offences.
4. On perusing the charge sheet this court has taken
cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 120(B), 379, 468,
471, 474 and 420 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.
During crime stage accused were released on bail.
5. The copy of the charge sheet and other materials
has been supplied to the accused as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing both side the charge for the offence
punishable U/s. 120(B), 379, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of IPC
4 CC.NO.26153/2014
was framed & read over to the accused in the language known to
them. He denied the charge and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the case the prosecution has
examined complainant as PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
3. The prayer of the Sr. A.P.P. to issue summons to other
witnesses has been rejected by this court on the ground that,
PW.1 being complainant/material witness PW.2 being purchaser
of the motor cycle and also being material witness have turned
hostile and also on the ground that, no purpose will be served if
other witnesses are examined.
8. The 313 Cr.P.C. statement has been dispensed with
since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused.
9. I have heard the learned Sr. A.P.P. and learned
defense counsel.
10. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that, on 13/10/2013 between 6.05 to 7.00 p.m.
near Kashiviswanatha temple, 3rd main 5th cross, all
the accused have committed theft of Suzuki Axis
Motor Cycle No.KA-41-S-713 worth Rs.37,000/- of
CW.1 Smt. Saraswathi, without her consent and
thereby committed offence U/s. 379 R/w. 120(B) of
IPC ?
5 CC.NO.26153/2014
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that, after committing theft of said motor cycle A-
1 signed/forged signature of Cw.1 on Form No.9, Form
No.29 and 30, clearance certificate, transfer of
insurance, and authorization letter and by forging the
documents sold said motor cycle to CW.7 through
olx.com and thereby committed offences U/s. 120(B)
468,471, 474 and 420 of IPC?
3. What order ?
11. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 and 2 - In the Negative.
Point No.3 - As per final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1 AND 2:
12. Accused have denied the case of the prosecution. In
order to prove the case the prosecution has examined the owner
of the motor cycle as PW.1 and purchaser of the stolen motor
cycle as PW.2. But both of them have turned hostile. PW.1
denied that, she lost the motor cycle and accused have forged
her signature over transfer form etc. She deposed that, she had
given said motor cycle for accused for sale by signing form NO.29
and 30 and since accused could not sell it within short period she
filed complaint. So she has admitted her signature over transfer
forms. She admitted that, she herself has given motor cycle to
the accused. She was cross examined by APP at length but she
6 CC.NO.26153/2014
has not at all admitted the case of the prosecution. She denied
the contents of complaint - Ex.P.1 and further statement as per
Ex.P.2. During her cross by defence counsel she has admitted
that, she herself signed form NO.29 and 30 and accused have
not cheated her. She herself admitted that, since there was
difference of opinion she filed complaint against accused. Hence
evidence of PW.1 is not available to the prosecution.
13. It is specific case of the prosecution that, accused
have soled said motor cycle to PW.2 but PW.2 also turned
hostile. The learned APP cross examined her by stating that, he
ahs purchased motor cycle from accused by paying Rs.27,000/-
but he denied it. He denied that, he ahs given statement before
the police as per Ex.P.3. So when PW.1 herself deposed that,
she authorized the accused to sell her motor cycle by giving
signed papers then at any cost the ingredients of offences
alleged cannot be made out. So even if other witnesses would
have been examined by the prosecution then it would not have
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. It is well settled position of law that, prosecution has to
prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt but the prosecution
has not all proved its case through the evidence of PW.1 and 2.
It is also well settled position of law that if there exists any
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution then the benefit
of the doubt shall be always given to the accused. In this case
there is no evidence against the accused. Hence I hold that,
7 CC.NO.26153/2014
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and
I extend benefit of the doubt to the accused by answering point
No.1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2 :
15. In view of my answer to point No.1 in negative
accused are entitle for acquittal from the offences alleged. Hence
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted from the offences punishable U/s. 120(B), 379, 468, 471, 474 and 420 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and their surety stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the ........ day of ...................., 2016) (Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
8 CC.NO.26153/2014ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Saraswathi W/o. Shivaprasad PW-2 : Fayaz S/o. Imamsab Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Statement of Complainant-PW.1 Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2 & 3 : Statements Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
-NIL-
(Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.