Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs ) Kantharaju @ Kantha S/O on 9 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2020
:PRESENT :
Sri Vidyadhar Shirahatti, LL.M
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 1083/2017
COMPLAINANT:- The State of Karnataka,
By Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED:- 1) Kantharaju @ Kantha S/o
Muuthuraju, Aged about 19
years, R/at No.85, 1st Cross,
1st Main road, Rurshikesh
Nagar, Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru.
2) Shekar @ Thippe Babina
Chanda, Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.106, 4th Cross, 3rd
Main road, Veerabadra Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence 05/10/2016
Date of report of offence 05/10/2016
Name of the complainant Kum.Navya
2 S.C.No.1083/2017
Date of commencement of 13/02/2019
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 24/01/2020
Offences complained of Sec. 398 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge A1 and A2 are found not
guilty.
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. S.M, Adv for A1 and A2
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Rajarjeshwari Nagar Police against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/Sec.398 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:
The complainant Kum.Navya has lodged the complaint before the respondent police alleging that, she is pursuing II year Bachelor of engineering course at Gobal Technology College, Bengaluru. On 5/10/2016 at about 6.55pm, she along with her friend by name Anusha had been to Monesh Corner Hotel, Ideal Homes, situated at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru for Tiffin. After finishing their tiffin, they were proceeding just behind hotel, at that time, three unknown persons came 3 S.C.No.1083/2017 on motorbike and illegally stopped informant and her friend and put them in fear of causing death or grievous hurt by showing deadly weapon like knife and insisting them to handover mobile phone and other valuable articles as well as cash, for which the complainant and her friend refused. Hence, all three unknown persons assaulted the complainant and her friend and when they shouted for help the said accused persons ran away from the spot and thereby committed the offences alleged.
3. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.398 of IPC. On receipt of the charge sheet as the accused No.1 and 2 were secured and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court. Since the offence alleged against accused is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned III ACMM, Bengaluru, as per order dtd.30/8/2017 committed the case against accused to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions 4 S.C.No.1083/2017 Judge Bengaluru. That on committal, the case was registered as S.C.No.1083/2017 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Accused No.1 and 2 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel.
4. Thereafter, admitting of the case, accused was secured and on hearing the prosecution as well as defense counsel u/Sec.227 of Cr.P.C, this court framed the charge against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/Sec.398 of IPC, the contents of the charge for the above said offence read over and explained to accused in the language known to them and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, prosecution have cited 16 witnesses, out of that prosecution examined only 9 witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and one material object marked as M.O.1. Since, in despite of sufficient opportunity, the 5 S.C.No.1083/2017 concerned police have not secured the presence of CW3 to CW5 and hence, in order to render speedy justice, CW3 to CW6 have been dropped as not secured, CW8, CW10, CW11 and CW13 are givenup as repeatation of evidence of PW5, the evidence of prosecution taken as closed on 24/1/2020. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is recorded. The case of defence is total denial of prosecution case and the defence examined none and no documents are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for accused. Perused the records.
7. The only points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 5/10/2016 at about 6.55pm, while complainant along with CW2 were proceeding just behind Monesh Corner Hotel, Ideal Homes, hotel, 6 S.C.No.1083/2017 situated at Rajajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru at that time, accused No.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 came there on motorbike and illegally stopped informant and her friend and put them in fear of causing death or grievous hurt by showing deadly weapons like knife and had attempted to commit daocity and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.398 of IPC
2) What order?
8. My answer 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:- The prosecution in support of its case in all examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 12 and M.O.1. I have carefully gone through the evidence of these witnesses and contents of the documents. 7 S.C.No.1083/2017
10. It is case of the prosecution that: she is pursuing II year Bachelor of engineering course at Gobal Technology College, Bengaluru. On 5/10/2016 at about 6.55pm, she along with her friend by name Anusha had been to Monesh Corner Hotel, Ideal Homes, situated at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru for Tiffin. After finishing their tiffin, they were proceeding just behind hotel, at that time, three unknown persons came on motorbike and illegally stopped informant and her friend and put them in fear of causing death or grievous hurt by showing deadly weapon like knife and insisting them to handover mobile phone and other valuable articles as well as cash, for which the complainant and her friend refused. Hence, all three unknown persons assaulted the complainant and her friend and when they shouted for help the said accused persons ran away from the spot and thereby committed the offences alleged.
11. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9. PW1 and PW2 are 8 S.C.No.1083/2017 the victim and eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, PW3 who is registered the case. PW4 to PW7 are the police officials speak about the apprehending of the accused in another case. PW8 is the independent panch witness and PW9 is the Investigating Officer.
12. PW1 Navya who is the complainant in this case deposed that on 5/10/2016 at about 6.55pm, she along with her friend Anusha CW2 while they were proceeding near public park, three unknown persons came on motorbike and restrained them and by pointing knife have shouted demanded for money and mobile and when they refused to pay the same, the said persons tried to assault them and when she shouted for help the said persons ran away from the spot in a scooter and at that time, the public telephoned the police and police came to the spot and at that time, she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1.
9 S.C.No.1083/2017
13. She further deposed that, thereafter, the police asked her to come near central jail. However, she had not been to the central jail, as due to darkness, she has not clearly observed the accused persons and in this regard, she has not been to the police station and identified the accused persons and she has also not given any statement before the police. It is relevant to note that, though PW1 speaks about the incident. However, she turned hostile with respect of identification of accused and not supported the case of the prosecution.
14. PW2 Anusha who is stated to be the eyewitness to the alleged incident has deposed as per with the evidence of PW1. However, she is also failed to identify the accused persons and turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
15. It is pertinent to note that, PW1 who is stated to be complainant and PW2 who is eyewitness to the alleged incident speaks about the incident. However, they 10 S.C.No.1083/2017 turned hostile with respect of identification of accused and not supported the case of the prosecution. In their statement they are stated that, accused persons were aged about 18 - 20 years and they failed to identify the accused persons. Further that, they have deposed that, Executive Magistrate have called them for Test Identification Parade, however, they have not appeared before him at Parapana Agrahara Central Jail to identify the accused persons, as they are unable to identify the accused persons as the alleged incident taken place at night time. It is important to note that, the accused persons have not denied the evidence deposed the PW1 and PW2 and their evidence does not discloses anything against the accused and hence, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
16. PW3 Rangaswamy speaks about the registering of the case and transmitting the FIR to the court. The evidence of PW3 is formal in nature. 11 S.C.No.1083/2017
17. PW4 to PW7 who are stated to be the police officials speaks about the information received by them in another case and also apprehending of the accused persons. It is relevant to note that, they are deposed that, on 26/10/2016 they have received the information about the preparation of committing the dacoity by the accused persons and apprehending of the accused persons. It is important to note that, though their evidence are believed as true, their evidence is not helpful to the present case on hand, because the complainant and eyewitnesses have failed to identify the accused persons. Hence, in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 the evidence of PW4 to PW7 are not helpful to the case of prosecution to connect the accused persons.
18. PW8 who is stated to be the panch witness to the seizure mahazar at Ex.P.9. It is relevant to note, PW8 who stated to be independent panch witness to the alleged seizure mahazar, has not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile and inspite of cross 12 S.C.No.1083/2017 examination nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieved that he is deposing falsely before the court. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
19. PW9 being I.O. has spoken to the fact that on 24/10/2016 he deputed his staff to trace and apprehend the accused persons and accordingly, on the same day at about 8.20pm his staff have produced the accused No.1 and 2 before him and he arrested them and recorded their voluntary statement and in their voluntary statements they have confessed before him that, they are tried to commit the robbery by pointing the knife from the complainant. He further deposed about the recording the voluntary statements of the accused No.1 to 3 and witnesses and after completing investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.
20. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW9, it can be said that admittedly PW9 is the police official and 13 S.C.No.1083/2017 speaks in his official capacity and his evidence has to be corroborated by the independent witnesses and therefore, his evidence does not help to the case of prosecution in any way in view of evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are stated to be complainant and eyewitness and also hostile evidence of independent mahazar witnesses at PW8. Added to this, the evidence of PW9 is formal in nature. Further, the evidence of this I.O. is of no assistance to prosecution to prove its allegations made against accused No.1 and 2, in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
21. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the materials placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to believe its case and to hold that these accused guilty for offence alleged.
22. It is relevant to note that, herein this case complainant and eyewitness who are stated to be material witnesses have not supported the case of 14 S.C.No.1083/2017 prosecution. As such, the evidence produced on record by prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of these accused beyond all reasonable doubts for offence alleged.
23. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not cogent, consistent and corroborative to believe its case as against accused No.1 and 2. The facts narrated by the witnesses who are examined before this Court, do not attract the ingredients of offence alleged.
24. Under the attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that the materials placed on record, are not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution and to hold the accused guilty for offence alleged. Hence the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts. As 15 S.C.No.1083/2017 such, accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
25. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting u/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the charge leveled against them for the offence punishable under Sec.398 of IPC.
Accused No.2 is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
The bail bonds executed by accused No.1 and that of his surety during the course of trial, stand cancelled.
However, bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused as required u/Sec.437- A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
16 S.C.No.1083/2017
Charge sheet Papers and Seized M.O 1 be preserved till disposal of split up charge sheet pending against absconding accused No.3.
*** (Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 9 th day of March, 2020) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti ) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Kum.Navya.D.L PW2 Kum.Anusha PW3 Rangaswamaiah PW4 Govindaraju PW5 Ramesh.M.S PW6 V.Shiva Reddy PW7 Basavaraj.G.H PW8 Nagesh PW9 Dilip Kumar K.H
List of witnesses examined for the defence: Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Further statement
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
17 S.C.No.1083/2017
Ex.P.4 Statement
Ex.P.5 FIR
Ex.P.6 Report
Ex.P.7 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 Letter to conduct Test Identification
Ex.P.9 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of statement
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of statement
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Statement.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
M.O.1 Yellow colour T-Shirt LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.18 S.C.No.1083/2017
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (VIDE SEPARATELY) ORDER Acting u/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the charge leveled against them for the offence punishable under Sec.398 of IPC.
Accused No.2 is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
The bail bonds executed by accused No.1 and that of his surety during the course of trial, stand cancelled.
However, bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Charge sheet Papers and Seized M.O 1 be preserved till disposal of split up charge sheet pending against absconding accused No.3.
(Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.