Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs A-1 V. Saravana 22 Yrs on 25 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2015
PRESENT :SRI VENKATARAMAN BHAT
B.Sc.,LL.B.(Spl),
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.8846/2006
Date of offence : 27-9-2005
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasurugate PS
Accused : A-1 V. Saravana 22 Yrs
S/o Venkatesh
R/at No.7/1, 13th Cross,
Cubbon pete, Bangalore.
A-2 Pramod kumar 25 Yrs
S/o Prabhakar
R/at No.161, Ramaswamy
Layout, R.S.palya,
Kammanahalli, Bangalore.
A-3 E. Shekhar 41 yrs
S/o Eshwara murthy
R/at No.16(18),
Ramakrishnappa road,
Cocks Town, Bangalore.
2 CC.8846/2006
Offence : U/s.506 r/w 34 of IPC,
Sec.25(1B)(a) and (h) 25(4)
of Arms Act
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused are acquitted
Date of Order : 25-3-2015.
** ** **
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Police Sub Inspector of Halasurugate
Police Station submitted charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable U/s.506
r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.25(1B)(a) and (h), 25(4)
of Arms Act.
2. According to the prosecution CW.1 and
other witnesses had come to FTC-III Court, City
Civil Court complex, so as to give evidence in
SC No.73/2005. It is alleged that at about 1-
00PM accused followed them and accused No.2
opened his shirt and showed revolver number of
times and gave a life threat. Under these
3 CC.8846/2006
circumstances CW.1 informed PI., of RMC Yard
who had come to the court. The said police
Inspector caught hold accused No.1 and accused
No.2 with the help of other police and 0.32
revolver with 3 bullets were found. The said
revolver has been seized and during the course
of investigation statement of the witnesses have
been recorded. It is alleged that though accused
No.3 was holding revolver license and same was
cancelled by the police commissioner, he failed
to surrender this arm and kept anauthorisedly.
According to the prosecution the said arm was
given to accused No.2 to give a life threat to
CW.1. Under these circumstances on the basis of
first information statement lodged by CW.1, FIR
has been registered at Cr.No.363/2005 of
Halasurugate Police station.
4 CC.8846/2006
3. During the course of investigation
accused were arrested and produced before the
court. Thereafter they were enlarged on bail.
4. After submission of charge sheet
cognizance of the offences have been taken.
Copy of the charge sheet was furnished as
contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge was
framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. CWs.1 to 15 witnesses have been cited in
the charge sheet. During the course of the trial
PWs.1 to 5 were examined and EX.P--1 to Ex.P-12
got marked, MOs.1 to 3 got marked.
6. After closing the prosecution side
evidence, statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded. Accused did not adduce any defence
evidence.
5 CC.8846/2006
7. Heard argument of Sr.APP and learned
counsel for the accused.
8. CW-1 was examined as PW.1. As per
First information statement given by PW.1,
accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a life threat by
showing revolver in the court premises.
However, during the course of trial PW.1 did not
support the prosecution. He failed to identify
the accused. In fact PW.1 is the aggrieved
person. In the case on hand evidence of PW.1 is
not helpful to the prosecution to establish the
charges against the accused.
9. PW.5 is one of the police constable, who
had gone to FTC-III to give evidence on the
alleged date of incident. According to the
prosecution he is an eyewitness to the said
incident. However evidence of PW.5 is hearsay
evidence. Though PW.5 was treated as hostile
witness and cross-examined by Sr.APP, nothing
6 CC.8846/2006
has been elicited during the course of cross
examination. Evidence of PW.5 is not useful to
the prosecution.
10. CW.15 is examined as PW.2. He was
working as PSI of Halasurugate PS at the
relevant point of time. PW.2 has deposed to
the effect that a message was sent from police
control room to go to City Civil Court.
According to him he suddenly rushed to the City
civil court complex. In fact PW.2 has
conducted investigation.
11. PW.3 is Ballistic Expert, who examined
the seized revolver and live bullets. Evidence
of PW.3 is opinion evidence. CW.5 was examined
as PW.4. PW.4 was working as Police Inspector
of RMC yard police station at the relevant point
of time. Acceding to PW.4, CW.1 and 2 had
called him through telephone at about 11-00am on
29-7-2005 and informed that gave a life threat
7 CC.8846/2006
was given by accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.4 has
proceeded to the spot. According to PW.4 a
revolver was found in the pocket of accused
No.2. Five live bullets were found in the
possession of accused No.1. PW.4 has deposed
regarding seizure of revolver and live bullets.
Now the question for consideration is whether
evidence of PW.4 inspires any confidence in the
mind of the court. It can be noticed that
aggrieved PW.1 did not support the prosecution.
Likewise PW.5 who is said to be present at the
place of incident, PW.5 has also failed to
support the prosecution. Identity of the accused
who showed revolver is not proved. The
allegation against accused No.3 is that though
his revolver licensee was cancelled, he failed
to deposit in the office of commissioner of
police, Bangalore. It is further alleged that
accused No.3 without any authority had handed
over this revolver and bullets to accused No.1
8 CC.8846/2006
and accused No.2 by violating the cancellation
order. It appears that the license of accused
No.3 was cancelled by commissioner of police,
Bangalore. It also discloses that he failed to
deposit the revolver. According to the
prosecution the revolver belonged to accused
No.3. But if evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 is
taken into consideration there is no material
to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 gave life
threat to CW.1 by showing the said revolver. In
fact seizure of revolver and live bullets from
the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 is not
proved by any independent evidence. Likewise
there is no positive evidence to prove that
accused No.3 had handed over the said revolver
to accused No.2. If accused No.3 has violated
the cancellation license order then it is a
separate offence and the concerned authority
has right to take action against accused No.3.
In the case on hand handing over the revolver by
9 CC.8846/2006
accused No.3 to accused No.2 is not at all
proved. If that being the position how could it
possible to try accused No.3 for the violation
of conditions of cancellation of license order.
When aggrieved PW.1 himself turned hostile,
prosecution failed to prove main charges. As far
as accused No.3 is concerned the officer who
cancelled the license was competent to take
actin in accordance with law. In spite of
sufficient opportunity prosecution failed to
secure the presence of other material witnesses.
Unless there is legal and acceptable evidence
against the accused it cannot be held that
prosecution proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.506 r/w 34 of IPC, Sec.25(1B)(a) and (h) 25(4) of Arms Act.
10 CC.8846/2006Accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to send MOs.1 to 3 to the Commissioner of police, Bangalore, for the disposal of the properties as per the provisions of Arms Act after appeal period is over.
As far as mobiles and other properties are concerned interim order is made absolute after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of March 2015).
(VENKATARAMAN BHAT) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Jagadish Chandraraj Aras PW.2 D.M.K. Aradhya PW.3 N.G. Prabhakar PW.4 K. Raviprasad PW.5 Shivakumar.11 CC.8846/2006
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Complaint
EX.P-2 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P-3 Spot mahazar
Ex.P-4 First Information Report
Ex.P-5 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P-6 Cancellation of license
Ex.P-7 Permission letter
EX.P-8 Report
EX.P-9 Sample seal
EX.P-10 Reasons for report EX.P-11 Photo EX.P-12 Statement of PW.5.
3. Material objects:
MO-1 Revolver MO-2 and 3 Live bullets.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.
12 CC.8846/2006(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.506 r/w 34 of IPC, Sec.25(1B)(a) and (h) 25(4) of Arms Act.
Accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to send MOs.1 to 3 to the Commissioner of police, Bangalore, for the disposal of the properties as per the provisions of Arms Act. As far as mobiles and other properties are concerned interim order is made absolute.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
13 CC.8846/2006 14 CC.8846/2006(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
15 CC.8846/2006