Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Has Cross-Examieed P.W.3 Ie Brief on 9 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 9th day of October 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.19288/2015
Date of Ofeece : 11-6-2012 t0 27-10-2014
Name of complaieaet : State by High Groueds
Police Statioe, Beegaluru.
Name of accused : Vigeeshwara Hegde
s/o Sripad Hegde,
aged 32 years,
r/o No.177, 2ed floor,
2ed 'G' maie,
Nagarabhavi II Stage,
Beegaluru.
Ofeeces complaieed of: U/s.418, 406, 408, 420 aed
380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of
I.T. Act, 2000.
Plea of accused : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : As per feal order
Date of Order : 9-10-2018.
2 C.C.No.19288/2015
JUDGMENT
The Iespector of Police, High Groueds Police Statioe, Beegaluru has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000.
2. It is the case of the prosecutioe that, oe 11-6-2012 the accused was workieg as a CEO of compaey eamely M/s A aed B Associates, Humae Resource Coesultaets beloegs to C.W.1 aed acquired software keowledge aed by usieg the facility of laptop, mobile phoee aed other facilities of the compaey with ieteetioe to cheat the compaey, has copied all the datas aed has opeeed two compaeies eamely Noveles Coesultieg aed Taleet Leegue Coesultaet aed committed the theft of details of said compaey aed used the same for his beeeft aed thereby caused loss 3 C.C.No.19288/2015 to the tuee of Rs.3 to 5 crores. Ueder such circumstaeces, the complaieaet has fled a complaiet agaiest the accused before the jurisdictioeal police. Accordiegly, the High Groueds police have registered the case agaiest the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000 ie Crime No.343/2014. The Ievestigatieg Ofcer, after completioe of ievestigatioe, has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused for the aforesaid ofeeces.
3. After appearaece of the accused, eecessary documeets as relied by the prosecutioe, are fureished to the accused as provided ueder Sectioe 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has beee framed aed same is read over aed explaieed to the accused. The accused pleaded eot guilty aed claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecutioe evideece.
4 C.C.No.19288/2015
4. C.Ws.1 to 11 have beee cited as charge sheet witeesses. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused, durieg the course of trial, C.Ws.3, 1, 5, 2, 7, 9, 8, 10 aed 7 respectively are examieed as P.Ws.1 to 9 aed got marked Exs.P1 to P8 aed ideetifed M.Os.1 to 3. So far as other charge sheet witeesses are coecereed, their preseece is eot secured, iespite of sufcieet time aed repeated issuaece of summoes aed warraets. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completioe of prosecutioe evideece, the statemeet of the accused was recorded ueder Sectioe 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has eot adduced aey defeece evideece oe his behalf. Therefore, there is eo defeece evideece oe behalf of the accused. 5 C.C.No.19288/2015
6. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed couesel appearieg for accused. The poiets that would arise for my coesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosecutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the accused has committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000?
2. What order ?
7. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: Ie the Negative.
Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The coeteetioe of the prosecutioe is that oe 11-6-2012 the accused was workieg as a CEO of compaey eamely M/s A aed B Associates, Humae Resource Coesultaets beloegs to C.W.1 aed acquired 6 C.C.No.19288/2015 software keowledge aed by usieg the facility of laptop, mobile phoee aed other facilities of the compaey with ieteetioe to cheat the compaey, has copied all the datas aed has opeeed two compaeies eamely Noveles Coesultieg aed Taleet Leegue Coesultaet aed committed the theft of details of said compaey aed used the same for his beeeft aed thereby caused loss to the tuee of Rs.3 to 5 crores thereby the accused has committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000.
9. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000, C.W.3 is examieed as P.W.1. P.W.1 is a mahazar witeess aed got marked the mahazar as Ex.P1 aed deposed with regard to the 7 C.C.No.19288/2015 allegatioes made agaiest the accused as well as mahazar. Siece P.W.1 has eot supported the case of the prosecutioe, he was treated as hostile witeess aed cross-examieed by the Leareed Seeior APP with the permissioe of the court. But ie the course of cross-examieatioe, P.W.1 has admitted all the suggestioes. However, the leareed couesel appearieg for the accused has cross-examieed P.W.1 ie brief, ie which he has deposited to the followieg efect:
I have sigeed the mahazar oe Ex.P1 ie the Police Statioe. C.W.1 is my boss. I do eot keow about the agreemeet betweee the accused aed C.W.1.
The evideece of P.W.1 as above is iecoesisteet with his evideece adduced ie chief-examieatioe. Therefore, the evideece of P.W.1 caeeot be relied oe. 8 C.C.No.19288/2015
10. C.W.1 is examieed as P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed ie chief-examieatioe aed reiterated the allegatioes made ie the course of complaiet. Heece, I eeed eot recapitulate those facts agaie at this stage. The evideece of P.W.2 caeeot be relied upoe, because his evideece is iecomplete. P.W.2 has eot adduced his evideece fully. Heece, iecomplete evideece of P.W.2 is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofeeces.
11. C.W.5 is examieed as P.W.3. P.W.3 is aeother mahazar witeess aed got marked seizure mahazar as Ex.P4 aed ideetifed pee drive, charger aed I phoee as M.Os.1 to 3. The leareed couesel appearieg for the accused has cross-examieed P.W.3 ie brief, ie which he has deposed to the followieg efect:
I was workieg with complaieaet frm as ofce boy. I do eot keow e-mail IF of accused.
9 C.C.No.19288/2015I do eot keow from which mail ID aed to which mail ID message are traesfered. The pee drive is beloegs to accused, but I do eot keow what data it coetaies. I have sigeed the mahazar ie the police statioe.
The evideece of P.W.3 as above is eot at all sufcieet to prove the seizure mahazar as well as allegatioes made agaiest the accused, because he pleaded igeoraece about the ID details as well as pee drive, alleged to have beee seized ueder Ex.P4. Ie fact P.W.3 has deposed that he has sigeed the mahazar ie the Police Statioe, but eot ie the ofce of complaieaet. Therefore, the evideece of P.W.3 is also eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused as well as seizure mahazar.
10 C.C.No.19288/2015
12. C.W.2 is examieed as P.W.4. P.W.4 is aeother spot mahazar witeess. Siece P.W.4 has eot supported the case of the prosecutioe, he was treated as hostile witeess aed cross-examieed by the leareed Seeior APP with the permissioe of the court. But ie the course of cros-examieaioe, he has admitted all the suggestioes. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.4 is eot at all coesisteet ie his versioe.
13. The leareed couesel appearieg for the accused has cross-examieed P.W.4 ie detail. It is deposed ie the course of cross-examieatioe that he has seee the pee drive ie the haeds of the police. It is further pleaded igeoraece that he does eot keow the details of the techeical expert who has accompaeied the maeagemeet ie the Police Statioe. Ie the course of cross-examieatioe P.W.4 has deposed to the followieg efect:
11 C.C.No.19288/2015
It is true to suggest that, the data which was dowe loaded from the said peed rive coetaies bio data of various iedividuals who lookieg for job, agreemeet documeets.
It is true to suggest that, the said ieformatioe is maietaieed by our ofce to public domaie eamely eoukri.com aed other websites.
Witeess voluetaries that the said
ieformatioe also pertaies to the
details of other clieets of the
compaey. It is true to suggest that,
aey persoe cae get the said
ieformatioe by payieg prescribed fee. The categorical admissioe of P.W.4 as above is eot at all sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused, because his evideece is eot sufcieet how the accused has misused the details of the complaieaet compaey aed what kied of details he has committed the theft. 12 C.C.No.19288/2015 Therefore, ie the abseece of aey such material details, the evideece of P.W.4 is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused.
14. C.W.7 is examieed as P.W.5. P.W.5 is a coesultaet of the complaieaet compaey. It is deposed by P.W.5 that whee he checked the computer beloegs to the complaieaet he has eoticed that data was deleted aed it was deleted ie the mid eight aed deposed with regard to the other ieformatioe alleged agaiest the accused. The leareed couesel appearieg for the accused has cross-examieed P.W.5 ie brief, ie which P.W.5 has deposed ie page No.2, para No.2 to the followieg efect:
The coetaies of Ex.P6
was disclosed by
Prasaeeakumar/C.W.1 to
me aed I do eot keow
what Ex.P6 coetaies.
13 C.C.No.19288/2015
The evideece of P.W.5, who is a techeical expert, is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused for commissioe of date of theft, because he pedaled igeoraece about the coeteets of Ex.P6. Heece, the evideece of P.W.5 is also is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused.
15. C.W.9 is examieed as P.W.6, who is a Police Coestable who has deposed with regard to the registratioe of complaiet oe the basis of complaiet fled by the complaieaet. It is admitted by P.W.6 ie the cross-examieatioe to the followieg efect:
It is true to suggest that, complaiet was lodged oe 21-11-2014. I have eot eequired with regard to the four days delay. I have eot eequired with regard to the eedorsemeet made oe Ex.P2 ie the frst page.
14 C.C.No.19288/2015The evideece of P.W.6 as above creates a doubt with regard to the allegatioes made agaiest the accused, because there is eo proper explaeatioe for delay ie flieg the complaiet.
16. C.W.8 is examieed as P.W.7. P.W.7 is a Police Coestable who has also deposed with regard to the appreheesioe of the accused. Mere arrestieg of accused is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused, ie the abseece of material evideece.
17. C.W.10 is examieed as P.W.8. P.W.8 is a Police Iespector who has ievestigated the matter deposed with regard to his ievestigatioe. Ie the course of cross- examieatioe P.W.8 has deposed to the followieg efect:
I have eot issued eotice to the paech witeesses. It is true to suggest that, paech witeesses are the employees o the complaieaet. 15 C.C.No.19288/2015
It is true to suggest that, seizure witeesses are the employees ueder the complaieaet.
The evideece of P.W.8 is eot sufcieet either to prove the guilt of the accused or to prove the ievestigatioe.
18. C.W.7 is examieed as P.W.9, P.W.9 is aeother Police Coestable who has arrested the accused persoe aed submitted the report as per Ex.P8. As stated above mere arrestieg of accused persoe is eot sufcieet to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofeeces ie the abseece of aey material evideece. Therefore, ie view of the above discussioes aed reasoeiegs, I am of the opieioe that the prosecutioe has miserably failed to prove its case agaiest the accused for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 16 C.C.No.19288/2015 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000 beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heece, it is held that the accused is eetitled for acquittal for the alleged ofeeces. Accordiegly, I aeswer poiet No.1 ie the negative.
19. Point No.2:- Ie view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, I proceed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The accused is eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000. Therefore, he is acquitted for said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused staeds caecelled.
M.Os.1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.17 C.C.No.19288/2015
(Dictated to the steeographer, traescribed aed typed by her, revised aed thee corrected by me aed thee proeoueced ie opee court oe this the 9th day of October 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
P.W.1, Goviedaraja, P.W.2, Adiprasaeeakumar, P.W.3, Rajesh, P.W.4, Basavaeagappa, P.W.5, Ramkumar, P.W.6, Shivarudraiah, P.W.7, C.K.Nagesh, P.W.8, E.B.Sridhara, P.W.9, Ramjae Sab Tahasildar;
List of documeets marked oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
Ex.P1, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P1(a), Sigeature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b), Sigeature of P.W.4,
Ex.P2, Complaiet,
Ex.P2(a), Sigeature of P.W.2,
Ex.P3, E-mail priet out,
Ex.P4, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P4(a), Sigeature of P.W.3,
Ex.P5, Priet out (19 pages),
Ex.P6, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P6(a), Sigeature of P.W.4,
Ex.P6(b), Sigeature of P.W.5,
18 C.C.No.19288/2015
Ex.P7, FIR,
Ex.P7(a), Sigeature of P.W.6,
Ex.P8, Report,
Ex.P8(a), Sigeature of P.W.9;
List of material object:
M.O.1, Mobile,
M.O.2, Charger,
M.O.3, Peedrive;
List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of the defeece:-
NIL List of documeets marked oe behalf of the defeece:-
Nil (V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.19 C.C.No.19288/2015
9/10/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgmeet (Judgmeet proeoueced ie the Opee Court) ORDER The accused is eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 418, 406, 408, 420 aed 380 of IPC aed 65 aed 66 of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, 2000. Therefore, he is acquitted for said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused staeds caecelled. M.Os.1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Beegaluru.
20 C.C.No.19288/201521 C.C.No.19288/2015