Bangalore District Court
State By Bommanahalli Police vs Sasikumar @ Sasi @ Vinaykumar on 27 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 27th day of November 2019
PRESENT:
Smt. Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni,
B.Com., L L.B. (Spl.),
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
C.C. No.18627/2018
Complainant : State by Bommanahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru City
(By Sr. APP)
-V/s-
Accused : Sasikumar @ Sasi @ Vinaykumar
s/o Late Ganguleppa, Aged about
28 yrs, R/at No.2-43, Momdeva-
rapalli Village, Kalakada
Mandalam, Navabpet, Chittoor
District, Andhrapradesh State.
(By M.K.Raghavendra, Advocate)
Date of offence : 01-06-2018
2 CC No.18627/2018
Offences complained
of : Section 454, 380 IPC
Plea of the : Accused pleaded
Accused not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 27-11-2019
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Sub-Inspector of Bommanahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru City, has filed charge sheet against
accused for the offences punishable under Section 454,
380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are
that-
Prior to 01-06-2018, the accused had joined to
Room No.406 in the P.G. run by CW2 Mahendara
Reddy, where CW1 Syamkrishnan P.Aryan was
residing. That being so, on 01-06-2018 in between 9.10
a.m. and 9.15 a.m., when CW1 had went to bathroom,
the accused by way of locking the bathroom had
committed theft of H.P. Laptop, Asus Laptop, Redmi-4
3 CC No.18627/2018
Mobile Handset, Aadhaar Card, Pan Card, ICICI Credit
Card, Canara Bank Debit Card, Voter Identity Card,
Purse having Rs.300/- and a bag. It is also alleged that
the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs.40,000/-
from the Canara Bank Debit Card at Bommanahalli
ATM Center, purchased a Vivo Mobile Handset from
Flipkart Online through ICICI Credit Card and got
transferred Rs.14,000/- from the PAYTM to his
PAYTM account. Thereby the accused committed the
aforesaid offences.
3. Accused is on bail. After furnishing charge-
sheet copies, charge for the offence punishable under
Section 380 IPC was framed, read over and explained to
accused in the language known to him. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all four witnesses as PW1 to 4 and
produced documents as per Ex.P1 to 8. Thereafter, the
statement of accused, as required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating
evidence deposed against him and did not choose to lead
any defence evidence.
5. Heard arguments.
4 CC No.18627/2018
6. According to prosecution, accused being the
roommate of PW1 in a P.G. had committed theft of
Laptops, Redmi Mobile handset, Debit/Credit Cards
etc., belonging to PW1, withdrawn an amount of
Rs.40,000/- from the Canara bank Debit Card,
Purchased a Vivo mobile handset from Flipkart Online
through ICICI Credit Card and got transferred an
amount of Rs.14,000/- PAYTM account to his PAYTM
account.
7. PW1 Syamkrishnan - the complainant has
deposed in his evidence that earlier he was residing in a
P.G. at Garvebavipalya, on 01-06-2018 when he went to
bath, his two laptops, one mobile and one valet came to
be stolen by somebody, by way of locking the bathroom
and room. He lodged Ex.P1 complaint by suspecting his
room mate Vinaykumar, the police visited the spot and
conducted Ex.P2 mahazar, on the next day he had
intimated police as per Ex.P3 about drawing of amount
from his ATM card and also credit card. On 06-06-2018,
the police called him to station and shown certain
properties appearing in Ex.P4 photograph, wherein he
identified them and took for his interim custody. PW1
has further deposed that he had not seen the accused in
5 CC No.18627/2018
Station and that he doesn't know as to from whom the
properties are recovered. Though the prosecution treated
this witness as partly hostile and cross-examined,
nothing substantial could be elicited.
8. PW2 Ramachandra - the HC of Bommanahalli
P.S. has deposed in his evidence that on 06-06-2018,
himself and CW6 were deputed for trace of accused and
property, on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., on credible
information they have apprehended accused near PM
P.G. at Rajiv Gandhinagar. PW2 further deposed that as
the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation for
the possession of laptop, mobile and documents, they
produced him before the SHO through a report at Ex.P5.
Ramachandra - the HC of Bommanahalli P.S. has
deposed in his evidence that on 06-06-2018, himself and
CW6 were deputed for trace of accused and property, on
the same day at about 6.00 p.m., on credible information
they have apprehended accused near PM P.G. at Rajiv
Gandhinagar. In the cross-examination by defence side,
it is elicited that the photograph of accused was not
given by the SHO. PW2 admitted that in the place of
apprehension of accused, there is flow of public.
6 CC No.18627/2018
9. PW3 Sudhir and PW4 Shivakumar are the
panchas to seizure mahazar Ex.P6. Both these witnesses
deposed that they have not seen the accused, nothing
was seized in their presence, they signed Ex.P6 in the
station and that they do not know as to why they had
signed it. The prosecution treated theses witnesses as
hostile and cross-examined. But nothing substantial in
respect of Ex.P6 is brought out.
10. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence
available on record. It is important to note here that, as
already noted, the complainant PW1 has categorically
deposed in his evidence that he has not seen the accused
in station and he doesn't know as to from whom the
property were seized. Further in the cross-examination
of prosecution on treating him hostile, PW1 denied that
as on the date of incident, the accused was his room
mate and that on 06-06-2018 he had identified the
accused in station. The above evidence of PW1 makes
this court to doubt the entire prosecution case. This is
one aspect of the case.
11. In theft or robbery cases, the evidence of
seizure mahazar witnesses is material to prove the
alleged offence against accused. It is the case of
7 CC No.18627/2018
prosecution that the stolen property were seized from
accused in the presence of panchas CW4 and 5. But the
said witnesses who are examined as PW3 and 4
respectively turned hostile to prosecution and denied of
giving statements as per Ex.P7 and 8. Apart from this,
the evidence of CW8 - Investigating Officer who seized
the stolen property is not made available to court inspite
of giving sufficient opportunities. As such, there is no
circumstantial evidence also before the court.
12. Furthermore, the CC TV footage of ATM
Center where the accused is alleged to have withdrawn
amount of Rs.40,000/- would have played important role
in this case. But it appears that the Investigating Officer
has not taken any steps in this regard. Regarding
apprehension of accused, no mahazar appears to have
been drawn and the persons of that locality are not been
examined.
13. So to sum up, on careful scrutiny of the
prosecution evidence available on record, this court is of
the considered opinion that the same is totally
insufficient, so as to connect the accused in this case.
There are no direct, cogent and material circumstances
to connect accused for the alleged theft. Hence, the
8 CC No.18627/2018
prosecution failed to establish its case against accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled
for the benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following-
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.
The interim order in respect of properties seized under PF No.85/2018 granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute and the same shall come into effect, after the completion of appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer on computer. The computerized print out taken by Steno is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me on this day i.e., 27-11-2019) (Roopa Ramrao Kulkarni), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
9 CC No.18627/2018ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
PW1 : Syamkrishnan
PW2 : Ramachandra
PW3 : Sudhir
PW4 : Shivakumar
List of Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 : Particulars/Further Complaint
Ex.P4 : Photograph
Ex.P5 : Report of CW6
Ex.P6 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P7 : Statement of PW3
Ex.P8 : Statement of PW4
List of Material objects produced:-
Nil List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil C.M.M., BENGALURU.10 CC No.18627/2018
27-11-2019 (Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.
The interim order in respect of properties seized under PF No.85/2018 granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute and the same shall come into effect, after the completion of appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.