Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1:Sri.Velu @ Kushtarogi on 20 August, 2016
1 C.C.No.7730/2014
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 20th August 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No:7730/2014
Complainant : The State represented by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
R.R.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1:Sri.Velu @ Kushtarogi,
(Judicial Custody under
body warrant)
S/o Sri.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 19 yrs,
R/at:No:222, 22nd Block,
2 C.C.No.7730/2014
3rd Floor, Pantharapalya
Quarters, Ambedkar Nagar,
Nayandanahalli,
Bengaluru.
A2: Sri.Navaz,
(Split up in C.C.No.20663/15)
S/o Sri.Bhashu,
Aged about 30yrs,
R/at:behind KSRTC Bus Stop,
near Bilal Masjid, 1st Cross,
Ijooru, Ramanagar Town,
Ramanagar.
A3: Sri.Venkatesh @ Mental,
S/o Sri.Ramesh,
Aged about 20 yrs,
R/at:No:408, 3rd Floor,
13th Block, Pantharapalya
Quarters, Ambedkar Nagar,
Nayandanahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. SMAdv., Bengaluru)
---
3 C.C.No.7730/2014
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.7730/2014
Date of offence : 15/11/2012
Complainant : Sri.Shankar S.M.
Accused : As detailed above
Offence : U/Sec.380 of IPC.
Charge : Accused No.1 and 3
claimed to be tried
Final order : Accused No.1 and 3
Acquitted
Date of order : 20/8/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The PI of RR Nagar Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC.
4 C.C.No.7730/2014
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 15/11/2012 at about 8-15 a.m. the accused persons entered the house of CW1 and committed theft of Rs.20,000/- and gold ornaments. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17/1/2014 the CWs.9 to 13 arrested the accused persons and produced before CW15 and recovered iron rod and subjected at PF.No.3/2014 and on an information of the accused persons recovered the stolen articles from CW6 in the presence of CWs.7 and 8 and subjected at PF.No.4/2014 at Sl.No:2 and the same was identified by CW1. On the complaint of CW1 by name Sri.Shankara S.M. the RR Nagar Police have registered a case in Crime No.221/2012 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by 5 C.C.No.7730/2014 the learned Predecessor and the accused persons claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined PW.s 1 and 2 and relied upon the documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. 313 Cr.P.C., statement recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons.
5. Heard, perused the entire case records.
6. The only point that arises for my consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec. 454 and 380 of IPC?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:6 C.C.No.7730/2014
::REASONS::
8. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined Sri.Ranjith Kumar as PW1.By identifying the accused persons it is his evidence that on 14/1/2014 at about 10-30 a.m. the Police officials brought 4 accused persons and identified the articles sold to him and came to know the same as stolen articles, hence, handed over the same to the Police for which a seizer mahazar conducted as per Ex.P1 and identified the photographs as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. In view of the nature of evidence the witness has been treated as hostile and inspite of suggesting the stated mahazar was conducted on 19/1/2014 it was his innocence about the date and seizer of referred gold and silver articles.
9. The prosecution has examined Sri.M.V.Mahadevaiah as PW.2. It is his evidence along with other staff deputed to trace the accused and the stolen articles in respect of Crime 7 C.C.No.7730/2014 No:7/2014 accordingly that on 17/1/2014 at about 5-30 p.m. near Shakthi Resort of RR Nagar found as many as 4 persons. It is his evidence along with other staff apprehended all the 4 accused persons and on interrogation found the iron rod and on suspicion produced before the PSI with report as per Ex.P4. It is his evidence about the identity of the accused persons. On behalf of the accused the witness was not subjected for cross examination.
10. On consideration of the materials available on record the order sheet reveals inspite of issuance of summons, bailable warrant and NBW against the other charge sheeted witnesses the concerned investigation agency failed to secure the other witnesses before the Court except PWs.1 and 2. On comparison of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with that of the contents of the respective documents various omissions and contradictions are forthcoming which goes against the case of the prosecution. It is necessary to mention the PW1 is the receiver of the stolen property and the PW2 is the Police official who has apprehended the 8 C.C.No.7730/2014 accused persons. In the case on hand the CW1 who is the complainant remained absent from appearing before the Court and no other signatories of spot and seizer mahazar came to be examined by the prosecution.
11. It is necessary to mention the prosecution has also failed to examine the investigation agency and the investigation officer who has conducted investigation and filed the chargesheet. The order sheet reveals the prayer of the learned Sr.APP to issue summons to other witnesses came to be rejected. Thereby, there is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Consequently, resulting in failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
12. It is necessary to mention the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. The accused No.1 is in Judicial Custody under body warrant as he is involved in various cases and that he has undergone sufficient period of imprisonment during trial. Under the said 9 C.C.No.7730/2014 circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused Nos.1 and 3. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
13. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos. 1 and 3 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences U/Sec. 454 and 380 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.3 and that of the surety stand cancelled.
Issue intimation to the Jail Authorities to release accused No.1 forthwith if he is not required in any other case/s.10 C.C.No.7730/2014
Office to keep the entire record till the disposal of split up case registered against accused No.2 i.e. C.C.No.20663/2015.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 20/8/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Ranajith Kumar
PW2 : Sri.M.V.Mahadevaiah
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Copy of seizer mahazar
Ex.P2&3 : Photographs
11 C.C.No.7730/2014
Ex.p4 : Report
2. Material objects marked : NIL
4. Defence Evidence : NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
12 C.C.No.7730/2014