Bangalore District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Thosif Pasha on 5 July, 2024
1
C.C.No.13010/2019
KABC030417092019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 05th day of JULY, 2024.
Present: Sri SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XL Addl. C.J.M., Bangalore.
C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.
C.C. No.13010/2019
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
Complainant : State by BASAVANAGUDI Police
Station.
Vs/-
Accused : A1 Tousif Pasha @ Tousif
S/o Abdul Raheem
Age 24 years,
R/at No.3645, 9th Block Kaveri
Nagar, B.S.K. 2nd Stage,
Bangalore City.
A2 Kaleem Pasha @ Khaleem
S/o Muktar Pasha,
Age 29 years,
R/at NO.181, 9th Main, 34th cross,
Yarab nagar, BSK 2nd stage,
Bangalore city.
Date of offence : 20-12-2018
2
C.C.No.13010/2019
Offences complained : U/s.394 of IPC.
of
Plea : Accused No.1 and 2 Pleaded not
guilty
Final Order : Accused No.1 and 2 are Acquitted
Date of Order : 05-07-2024.
*****
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Basavanagudi Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this chargesheet against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s.394 of IPC.
2.The criminal law has been set into motion based on the first
information statement of Suresh Kumar Sharma. The gist of the
prosecution case is that on 20-12-2018 the accused No.1 and 2
came to two wheeler near A.P.S.college, N.R.Colony, in the mean
time CW-1 had parked his vehicle in front of House No.42 and was
opening the gate, at that time, the accused persons tried to snatch
the bag, CW-1 held on to the bag tightly, the accused persons made
him to fall down due to which he got injured and snatched away
the bag. Based on the said first information of Suresh Kumar
Sharma, a case in Crime No.284/2018 came to be registered
against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s.394
of IPC.
3
C.C.No.13010/2019
3. After completion of the investigation, the Police-Sub-
Inspector, Basavanagudi Police Station, Bangalore has filed this
charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable U/s.394 of IPC. On receipt of charge sheet, this court
took the cognizance of the alleged offence. Pursuant to the issuance
and service of summons Accused No.1 and 2 entered appearance
and were enlarged on bail and the prosecution papers was
provided to the accused No.1 and 2 as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Before framing charge, an opportunity of being heard was
provided to the accused and after hearing them and the
prosecution and as there was sufficient materials, the charge for
the aforesaid offence was framed and same was read over to the
accused in the language known to them, to which, the accused
No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter,
the matter was set down for prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has
examined PW1 to PW8 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P6
documents. The Statement of Accused No.1 and 2 as required U/s.
313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The accused
4
C.C.No.13010/2019
No.1 and 2 have not let in any oral or documentary evidence on
their behalf.
6. Heard arguments on both sides. I have Perused the
materials on record.
7. The following point arise for my determination :-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 20-12-2018 the accused No.1 and 2 came
to two wheeler near A.P.S.college, N.R.Colony, in the
mean time CW-1 had parked his vehicle in front of
House No.42 and was opening the gate, at that time, the
accused persons made him to fall down due to which he
got injured and snatched away the bag and thereby the
accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence
punishable u/s. 394 of IPC.?
2) What Order?
8. My finding to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1.......In the Negative.
Point No.2.......As per final Order, for the following :-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:- It is the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution will have to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the same, the
prosecution has examined three witnesses as PW1 to 6 and got
marked Ex,P.1 to Ex.P8 documents.
5
C.C.No.13010/2019
10. CW1 was examined as PW1. He has deposed in his
evidence that he knows accused persons. On 20-12-2018 after
returning from chickpet shop towards Basavanagudi, parked his
vehicle went to open the gate, at that time accused attempted to
commit robbery of his bag from his hands. When he protested,
accused pushed him, due to which, he sustained injury on his
head. When he screamed, accused fled away from the spot.
Immediately he went to AV hospital for treatment. Later he went to
the police station and lodged complaint. PW-1 further deposes that
on the next day of incident, police have visited the spot, conducted
mahazar in presence of panchas between 11.30 to 11.45 am as per
Ex.P.2. He has further deposed that on the day of incident accused
arrived on Honda activa white colour two wheeler. During his cross
examination, he has stated that he cannot read the complaint. He
has further stated that police had come to the hospital. He has
further stated that as he did not know about the features of the
accused, he had not mentioned them in the complaint. He has
further stated that only on police showing him as the accused
persons, he has identified them. He has further stated that he had
signed Ex.P.2 in the police station along with CW 2 and 3. He has
further admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2.
6
C.C.No.13010/2019
11. CW 3 was examined as PW-2. He has deposed in his
evidence that on 21-12-2018 at 10.30 a.m. police summoned him
to the place of occurrence and panchanama was conducted in his
presence and the police had obtained his signature on Ex.P.2 as
per Ex.P.2(a). During his cross examination, he has stated that he
is working as Technician in Hanumantha nagar P.S. He has further
stated that he had not read Ex.P.2.
12. CW-4 was examined as PW-3 Tej Raj Sharma. He has
deposed in his evidence that on 20-12-2018 police seized
motorcycle under seizure mahzar Ex.P.3 and he identified his
signature as per Ex.P.3(a). During his cross examination, he has
stated that he does not know the registration number of vehicle
seized by the police.
13. CW-10 was examined as PW-4 Reshma, PSI, VIP security.
He has deposed in his evidence that on 21-12-2019 at 10.15 a.m
CW-1 appeared in the police station and gave written complaint.
Based on it, he registered a case in Crime No.284/2018, submitted
FIR to the court. Complaint is marked at Ex.P.1, FIR is marked at
7
C.C.No.13010/2019
Ex.P.4 and he identifies signature therein as per Ex.P.1(a) and
Ex.P.4(a). PW-4 further deposes that on the same day CW-1
showed the place of incident. Where he conducted spot mahazar as
per Ex.P.2. He has further deposed that he had deputed CW 6 to 8
for tracing the accused. On 25-12-2018 CW6 to 8 produced
accused along with two wheeler before him and CW-6 had gave
report as per ExP.5. He has deposed that he arrested the accused
and recorded their voluntary statement. PW-4 further deposes that
on 25-12-2018 he seized the two wheeler produced by CW 6 to 8 in
presence of CW 4 and 5 under seizure mahzar as per Ex.P.3. On
17-1-2019, he obtained wound certificate as per Ex.P.6 and
thereafter on completion of investigation, he submitted chargesheet
against accused.
14. CW-9 was examined as PW-5 Dr.Shashikanth, Doctor,
A.V.hospital. He has deposed in his evidence that on 20-12-2018
at 10.30 p.m. CW-1 appeared before him with the history of assault
for treatment, on examination he found the injuries and opined
that said injuries are simple in nature and issued wound certificate
as per ExP.6 to that effect.
8
C.C.No.13010/2019
15. CW-6 was examined as PW-6 Balaram Naik, H.C. 6940,
Tilak nagar P.S. He has deposed in his evidence that on 25-12-
2018 CW-10 deputed him, CW 7 and 8 to trace the accused in
Crime No.285/2018. Accordingly after collecting the information,
and arrested the accused along with two wheeler and produced
before CW 10 along with a report as per Ex.P.5.
16.The above being the evidence on record, now it has to be
seen that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond any
reasonable doubt.
17. First and foremost the prosecution has to show that the
unknown bikers who had snatched the bag of CW-1 were the
accused No.1 and 2. In this regard, PW-1 though in the chief
examination identifies the the accused persons but during his
cross examination, he has admitted that he did not know the
features of accused, so he had not mentioned about the same in
the complaint. He has further admitted that only upon police
showing the accused to be the persons who had snatched away the
bag, he had identified them. Such being the case, from the evidence
of PW-1, it is not clear that the PW-1 has identified the accused to
9
C.C.No.13010/2019
be the persons who had snatched the bag from CW-1. Hence, in
this aspect as there is no proper identification of the accused, this
court holds that the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that
the unidentified persons who had snatched the chain were indeed
the accused No.1 and 2 of this case. Hence, in respect of this
aspect, I give benefit of doubt to the accused.
18. The next aspect which the prosecution had to be prove
through independent witness was seizure of the bag and also the
vehicle used for committing the offence. In the entire evidence of
prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has not seized or
recovered the bag which was allegedly stolen from CW-1. Further
coming to the vehicle is concerned, though PW-3 states that a
motorcycle was seized from the accused but, having gone through
the complaint it is clear that in the complaint, there is no mention
of any vehicle number of the vehicle used for committing the
offence. Such being the case, it was the burden on the prosecution
to produce documents which can link the seized vehicle to the
vehicle used to commit the crime. Though the I.O. states that he
had seen CCTV footage and then sent CW6 to 8 to secure the
accused but surprisingly no such CCTV footage is produced before
10
C.C.No.13010/2019
court which could have proved both the involvement of the
accused and also the vehicle used in the crime. Hence, this court
holds that there is no material on record to show that bag and the
vehicle was seized from the custody of accused No.1 and 2 herein.
19. Going by all the above discussion, this court holds that
the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the identification of the
accused and also seizure of vehicle and bag from the possession of
accused. When the prosecution has failed to prove these important
aspects, then this court cannot come to the conclusion regarding
guilt of the accused. Hence, this court holds that prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
20. POINT No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.,1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.394 of IPC.
11C.C.No.13010/2019 The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 05-07-2024 ).
(SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M.,) XL Addl.CJM.,B'lore C/C XXXVII ADDL.C.J.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Suresh Kumar Sharma PW-2 : Suraj PW-3 : Tej Raj Sharma PW-4 : Reshma PW-5 : Dr.Shashikanth PW-6 : Balaram Nayak PW-7 : Suraj LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.3 : Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW-3
12
C.C.No.13010/2019
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW-4
Ex.p.5 : Report by CW-6
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW-4
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.6a : Signature of PW-5
Ex.P.7&8 : Photos
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW-4.
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 C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.13
C.C.No.13010/2019 5-7-2024 14 C.C.No.13010/2019 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separately.
ORDER In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.,1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.394 of IPC. The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months.
C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE. 15 C.C.No.13010/2019