Bangalore District Court
State By vs Srinivasa @ Appu S/O.Ethiraj on 9 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 9th day of July 2015
PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22354/2012
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
Indiranagar Police Station
/vs/
Accused Srinivasa @ Appu S/o.Ethiraj, 31 yrs.
No.Nil, Chamundinagar, Hebbal,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The P.S.I of Indiranagar police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/S.380 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24/1/2011 at 11.45 PM at House No.33/5, near Govt. School, Dupanahalli, the accused committed theft of two gold Necklaces, one gold ring, one pair of gold ear-rings, one Camera and cash and thereby committed the alleged offence.
2 CC No.22354/2012
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in Indiranagar P.S., Cr.No.20/2011 and FIR was submitted to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas and statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was apprehended and the stolen properties were recovered and on completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offence.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Accused appeared before the court through his counsel and was released on bail. Subsequently, accused jumped bail and was involved in another case and he has been secured under body warrant in this case. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused through Video Conference for the alleged offence and accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. Statement of the accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded through Video Conference and the accused denied the circumstances incriminating him in the prosecution evidence.
3 CC No.22354/2012
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 24/1/2011 at 11.45 PM at House No.33/5, near Govt. School, Dupanahalli, the accused committed theft of two gold Necklaces, one gold ring, one pair of gold ear-rings, one Camera and cash and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
The prosecution in support of its case has examined 4 witnesses. PW.1 Janardhana is the complainant who has deposed that on 24/1/2011 he had been to pilgrimage and when he returned home on next day found door lock opened and there was theft of two gold Necklace, one gold ring, one pair of earrings, one Camera and some cash kept in the house. Thereafter he went to police station and filed 4 CC No.22354/2012 the complaint and was also present when police came to the spot and prepared mahazar in his presence. PW.1 further deposed that on 1/4/2011 he was called to Kumaraswamy Layout Police station where police showed him recovered stolen property which he got it released by executing bonds and by producing photos of it and at that time the accused was also shown to him.
10. PW.2 Kamraj has deposed that he was present when police came to the house of PW.1 and prepared mahazar regarding theft in the house of PW.1.
11. PW.3 Ajaresh.A.Killedar has deposed that on 25/3/2011 when he was working as PSI of Kumaraswamy Layout police station the accused was produced before him by his staff and he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused in which accused have confessed to have committed theft and on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused he recovered the stolen property from a jewellery shop at R.T.Nagar and also recorded the statement of witnesses and later the stolen properties and case papers were transferred to jurisdictional police station.
12. PW.4 G.Y.Giriraju is the I.O. who has deposed that on receipt of case papers and case property from Kumaraswamy Layout 5 CC No.22354/2012 police station as investigation was completed he submitted chargesheet to the court.
13. In the case on hand the seizure mahazar witnesses for recovery of stolen properties have not been examined by the prosecution. PW.3 is the police officer who has apprehended the accused and on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused he has recovered the stolen property involved in this case. The jewellery shop owner from whose shop the stolen properties are recovered is not examined before the court. PW.1 is the complainant has deposed that accused was shown to him in the police station. No recoveries are effected in the presence of PW.1 from the possession of accused. Though the defence has not cross examined the prosecution witnesses, at the same time in the absence of corroboration by seizure mahazar witnesses it would not proper to rely upon the unchallenged evidence of the police officer to hold that the accused has committed the alleged offences. The prosecution having not been able to corroborate the evidence of police officer with respect to seizure and recovery of the stolen properties, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
6 CC No.22354/2012
14. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable u/s 380 of IPC. Body warrant issued against the accused stands cancelled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Office to intimate the jail authorities accordingly. The interim custody of the properties are made absolute.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of July 2015).
(ARJUN.S.MALLUR)
X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU
7 CC No.22354/2012
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 Janardhan. Nil
PW.2 Kamraj.
PW.3 Ajaresh A.Killedar.
PW.4 G.Y.Giriraju.
Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P3 Photo.
Ex.P4 True copy of Report
Ex.P5 Voluntary statement of accused. Ex.P6 Voluntary statement of accused. Ex.P7 True copy of seizure mahazar.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru