Bangalore District Court
Banumurthy vs Ajay on 19 February, 2025
KABC030112272012
Presented on : 03-05-2012
Registered on : 03-05-2012
Decided on : 19-02-2025
Duration : 12 years, 9 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 19th Day of February, 2025
C.C. No.11049/2012
(Crime No.149/2011)
State by Gangammanagudi Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Ajaykumar @ Chinna,
Major,
S/o Sri Dayakar,
R/at No.322, 6th Main Road,
6th Cross, Bahubali Nagar,
M.E.S. Road, Jalahalli,
Bengaluru City.
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
2. Sri Manukumar @ Manu-split up
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Sri Vijay Kumar,
R/at Hotel Amma, Sanjeevini
Complex, Pinto Chowki
Main Road, Bengaluru.
3. Sri Rajendra - Split up
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sri Rachaiaih,
R/at No.22, 4th Block,
Kalappa Layout,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-97.
4. Sri Santosh @ Santhu - Split up
Aged bout 22 years,
S/o Sri Late Hanumanthappa,
R/at No.22, 3rd Cross,
1st Main Road, Near Chowdeshwari
Bus Stop, Mattikere, Bengaluru-22.
5. Sri Hemanth - Split up
Aged about 22 years,
S/o Sri Late Prakash,
2
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
R/at No.120, 10th Cross dead End,
Bhovipalya, Nagapura Ward,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru-86. .............Accused
The case against accused No.2 and 5 was split up by
the order dated 05-10-2016 and CC No.7505/2017
came to be registered against them.
The case against accused No.3 and 4 was split up by
the order dated 24-01-2018 and CC No.7143/2019
came to be registered against them.
(Represented By Sri K M Ravikumar Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 07-12-2011
offence
2. Date of FIR 07-12-2011
3. Date of Charge sheet 27/04/2012
4. Name of Complainant Sri Bhanumurthy
5. Offences complained of Under Section 384 read
with Section 34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 11-07-2018
charges
3
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
7. Charge/Plea Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 17-09-2018
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 19/02/2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 19/02/2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Gangammanagudi Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 07-12-2011 in between 17.15 hours to 17.45 hours, the accused persons with common intention threatened CW1 namely Sri Bhanumurthy by holding long and chopper near his shop namely Velangana Stores situated at Gangammanagudi Circle, Jalahalli West, within the limits of Gangammanagudi PS and 4 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 snatched money bag which containing Rs.78,425/- from him and ran away from the spot.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, Sri Nagaraja.H., PI of Gangammanagudi Police Station registered a Crime No.146/2011 against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P12 and sent the same to the Court and handed over the case papers to CW18.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from CW17, CW19/PW7 Sri Purushotham, PSI of Gangammanagudi PS continued investigation, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, collected the documents and seized long and vehicles under Ex.P5 seizure mahazar and seized cash amounts under Ex.P6 to Ex.P10 seizure mahazars and submitted chare sheet against accused No. 1 to 5 and that accused No.6 is absconding, if he traced out, a separate charge sheet will be submitted against him.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
5KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
6. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 09-12- 2011.
7. In continuous absence of accused No.2 and 5, the case against them was ordered to be split up charge sheet by the order dated 05-10-2016 and CC No.7505/2017 came to be registered against them. The case against accused No.3 and 4 was ordered to be split up charge sheet by the order dated 24-01- 2018 and CC No.7143/2019 came to be registered against them.
8. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1.
9. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.384 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 19 witnesses, examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and MO1 and closed their side. It appears from the order sheet particularly order dated 29/09/2018, 20/11/2018 and 27/02/2019 sufficient time granted for execution of warrants for securing the presence of CW4 to CW6 and CW20; CW7 to CW12 and CW14 and CW18 and hence dropped out from examination.
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused No.1 was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 07-12-2011 in 7 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 between 17.15 hours to 17.45 hours, the accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 to 5 with common intention threatened CW1 namely Sri Bhanumurthy by holding long and chopper near the shop namely Velangana Stores situated at Gangammanagudi Circle, Jalahalli West, within the limits of Gangammanagudi PS and snatched money bag which containing Rs.78,425/-
from him and ran away from the spot thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC?
2. What order?
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
8
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
REASONS
15. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, which are as follows i. CW1 Sri Bhanumurthy, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that he was carrying on business in oil for the last ten years and he was taking oil tins in his Tata 407 vehicle on 07-12-2011 at about 5.40 p.m. , near Gangammanagudi Circle, when he was about to unload oil tin, two persons came in a vehicle and snatched cash bag containing cash of Rs.80,000/- from him and threatened him with chopper and ran away. Hence, he filed complaint as per Ex.P1. After 1 ½ years, the police have called him to the station to identify the accused persons and theft article and accordingly he identified the accused and bag containing Rs.22,000/-.
ii. CW2 Sri Phonacha and CW3 Sri Kiran, mahazar witnesses examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively identified their signatures on Ex.P2 spot mahazar as per Ex.P2(a) and (b) respectively.
9KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 iii. CW19 Sri Purushotham, the then PSI of Gangammanagudi Police station and Investigating officer examined as PW4 deposed with regard to registration of case, recording of statements of witnesses including voluntary statement of accused No.1 and also seizure of articles and arresting the accused persons and submitted charge sheet against accused persons. He identified seizure mahazars as per Ex.P4 to 10 and signatures thereon as Ex.P4(a) to 10(a).
iv. CW16 Sri Sharanappa.R.Dhoni, CW17 Sri V.C.Nagaraj and CW15 Sri Mahesh, the then PCs of Gangammanagudi PS examined as PW5, PW7 and PW8 deposed about the apprehension of accused and produce them before SHO and submitted report as per Ex.P11.
v. CW17 Sri Nagarj, the then PI of Gangammanagudi PS examined as PW6 and deposed on 07-12-2011 on receipt of complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1 he registered the FIR as per Ex.P12 and handed over the case papers to CW18. He identified his signature as per ex.P12(a).
16. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 24, 43, 44, 383 to determine whether the accused No.1 10 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 along with the accused No.2 to 5 has committed the offences punishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code which are extracted as under as well as contents of the complaint are as follows; .
Section 24 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under
"Dishonestly". --Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
Section 43 of the IPC defines the word 'illegal' is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be 'legally bound to do' whatever it is illegal in him to omit.
Section 44 of the IPC defines the word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
Section 383 of IPC which defines Extortion --
11KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"."
"Section 384- Punishment for extortion- Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
17. The contents of complaint dated 07/12/2011 which reads as under
ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ 5.15ಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ 5.45ಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ನಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನದ ಬಳಿ ಬಂದಾಗ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಕಾಲೇಜು ಯುವಕರಂತೆ ಕಾಣುವ ಆಸಾಮಿಗಳು ಬಳಿಗೆ ಬಂದು ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ತನ್ನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮಚ್ಚುನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬ ನನ್ನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದ ಬ್ಯಾಗನ್ನು ತಗೊಂಡು ಓಡಿ ಹೋಗಿ ಪರಾರಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ 12 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 Thus, it emerges from complaint as per Ex.P1, it is nowhere reflected that on extortion made by the accused No.1 and 2, CW1/PW1 Sri Banumurthy delivered any valuable property to the accused No.1 and 2 rather it appears that they had snatched the bag from him under the long and chopper and as such, he has not committed offence under Section 384 of IPC. There is a lot of difference between the words delivered and snatched and such being the case. Even from perusal of the final report, it is clear that the documents submitted by the investigating agency PW6 regarding statements of the witnesses, none of the witnesses has stated on extortion made by the accused No.1 by demanding sum from PW1 and PW1 has given demanded sum to the accused, as such, there is no ingredient for offence under Section 384 of IPC is made out.
18. It would be evident from the reading of Section 383 of IPC that the ingredients of 'extortion' are; (i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (iii) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; (iv) such inducement must be done 13 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 dishonestly. The terms 'dishonestly', 'illegally' and 'injury' used in Section 383 of the IPC and in Section 24, 43, 44 of the IPC respectively. On a careful consideration of the above definitions and ingredients what appears is that if someone puts the others intentionally in fear to any injury and thereby, dishonestly induces that person who has been put into fear to deliver to the person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed or which may be converted into valuable security shall be liable to be punished for 'extortion'. Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of injury, the victim/PW1 had voluntarily delivered any money bag to the accused No. 1 putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion' would not be available. Further, if a person snatches any property by putting fear of injury, an offence of 'extortion' cannot be said to have been committed.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. S. Nayak Vs A. N. Antulay and another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716 wherein it was held that 14 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 "60. Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion. We agree with this view which has been indicated in Habibul Razak v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1924 All 197. There is no evidence at all in this case that the managements of the sugar co-
operatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats. Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar co-
operatives had some of their
grievances pending consideration
before the Government and pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such grievances, possibly by way of reciprocity, we do not think the appellant is justified in his contention 15 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 that the ingredients of the offence of extortion have been made out. The evidence led by the prosecution falls short of the requirements of law in regard to the alleged offence of extortion. We see, therefore, no justification in the claim of Mr. Jethmalani that a charge for the offence of extortion should have been framed".
20. It is relevant to rely upon the decision in case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2014(15) 357, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in para 3 which are extracted as under:
"3. Xxxxx In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 of IPC is made out.
Section 383, IPC states that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly 16 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits 'extortion'. Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police. Thus, from bare perusal of complaint and FIR and evidence of PW1, it is crystal clear that no delivery of valuable property has been parted after his illegal demand and hence the offence under Section 383 of IPC for extortion is not made out.
21. In this case the accused has not cross examined PW1, PW3 to PW8. Though PW2 has subjected him for cross examination who in turn admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P2- spot mahazar and he affixed his signature on Ex.P2 in the police station. Hence, the case was disposed off by I ACMM, Bengaluru by the order dated 16/04/2019 in convicting the accused No.1 for the alleged offence and passed the following order after hearing on sentence from both Sr.APP and counsel for accused.
17 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused no.1 is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused No.1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and he shall also liable to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default to pay fine amount, the accused No.1 shall under to simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
Xxxxxxxx
22. Thereafter, the accused No.1 has preferred appeal against judgment dated 16-04-2019 before Hon'ble Sessions Court in Crl. Appeal No.1016/2019 wherein the Hon'ble Session Court has allowed the appeal filed by accused No.1 on 18-11-2021 and set aside the judgment dated 16-04-2019 and send back the case with a direction to record the evidence of 18 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 witnesses in the presence of accused No.1 by following procedure as prescribed under Criminal Procedure Code and to give an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witnesses. After receipt of case from the Hon'ble Session Court, this court issued witness summons, warrants and proclamation to PW1, PW3 to PW7 for several times however the concerned police failed to secure the witnesses and hence they were dropped out from examination by the order dated 23/08/2024. Though the CW3 to CW7 was mentioned in the order sheet, this court had verified the summons and warrants which was addressed to PW1 to PW7 and not to CW1 to CW7.
23. The court has gone through the evidence of witnesses in both the chief-in-examination. Though PW1 to PW7 deposed in support of prosecution in the chief examination, but they were not subjected themselves for cross-examination. The defence of accused No.1 in criminal law could be put forth only during the time of cross-examination. When the PW1 to PW7 never subjected themselves for cross examination, then an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution case as per Section 114f of Indian Evidence Act and the said principle is appreciated in the case of VIDHYADHAR VS. MANKIKRAO AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN AIR 1999 SC 1441 AND IN THE CASE OF ISWAR BHAI C. 19 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 PATEL VS HARIHAR BEHERA AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN AIR 1999 SC 1341. Added to which, the ingredients of Section 383 of IPC was not proved. The prosecution failed to establish the alleged offence against accused and hence the accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt thereby this court answer the above point No.1 in the negative.
24. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offence punishable under Sec.384 read with Sec.34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.20
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case in CC No.7505/2017 registered against accused No.2 and 5 and in CC No.7143/2019 registered against accused No.3 and 4.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of February, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Bhanumurthy/Informant PW2 : Sri Ponnacha/Mahazar witness PW3 : Sri Kiran/Mahazar witness PW4 : Sri Purushotham/IO PW5 : Sri Sharanappa R Doni/PC PW6 : Sri Nagara/PI-partial IO PW7 : Sri V.C.Nagaraj/PC PW8 : Sri Mahesh/PC 21 KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar /PW2 Ex.P3 : Voluntary statement of accused/PW4 Ex.P4 : Seizure Mahazars/PW4 to 10 Ex.P11 : Report /PW5 Ex.P12 : FIR/PW6
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Chopper / PW1 Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.22
KABC030112272012 CC No.11049/2012 19-2-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offence punishable under Sec.384 read with Sec.34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case in CC No.7505/2017 registered against accused No.2 and 5 and in CC No.7143/2019 registered against accused No.3 and 4.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
23