Bangalore District Court
State By Amruthahalli Police vs Md. Mansoorulla Hasan on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri Rudolph Pereira B.Com., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of January 2017
C.C. No-2410/2014
Complainant : State by Amruthahalli Police,
Bengaluru
-V/s-
Accused : Md. Mansoorulla Hasan
@ Mansoor s/o Md. Noorulla,
19 yrs, R/at Behind Mujamil
Masjid, Near 2nd Cross of
H.K.B.K. College Front Gate,
Dead End Right Side House,
Govindapura, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru.
Date of offence : 25-08-2013
Offence : U/S 392 of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused Person Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Person Acquitted
Date of Order : 10-01-2017
2 CC No.2410/2014
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.I. of Amruthahalli P.S., Bengaluru has filed this
charge sheet against accused person for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 25-08-2013 at 4-00 p.m., when CW1 Gowthami
was walking at 10th Main Road, Coffee Board Layout,
Bengaluru, the accused person who was standing there with
Yamaha R-15 bike at 80 feet road, had robbed her gold chain
weighing about 40 grams worth Rs.1,20,000/- and flew away
from the spot. Thereby the accused person had committed the
aforesaid offence.
3. The accused person is on bail. After furnishing the
copies of charge sheet, charge was framed, read over and
explained to the accused person by my then learned
predecessor. Accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
3 CC No.2410/2014
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all
four witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.4, got marked the
documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.5. The learned Sr.APP has
given up CW3. The other witnesses i.e., CW4 to 7 and 9 did
not turn up before this court inspite of coercive steps taken by
this court. Hence by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP,
this court dropped the said witnesses. Thereafter, the accused
person is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied
the incriminating evidence and submitted that he has no
defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Sr.APP
and the learned counsel for accused person.
6. Herein, the complainant Gowthami appeared before
the court as PW1. She has adduced inconsistent evidence
about the alleged incident dated 25-08-2013. It is the case of
prosecution that the accused person who came from backside
robbed the gold neck chain of PW1. But before this court, the
4 CC No.2410/2014
PW1 has deposed that some unknown person who came from
her back side had robbed her gold chain and flew away from
the spot in a bike. She has deposed that she has not seen the
accused and the police did not show the accused in police
station. The prosecution papers would disclose that the PW1
has identified her chain and the accused was shown to her
and her statement was recorded accordingly on 01-12-2013.
But the PW1 has denied the same and stated that she has not
given any statement to the police inrespect of identifying the
accused. The above evidence of PW1 indicates that there is
no corroboration between the prosecution case and the
testimony of this witness. Hence, I am of the view that the
evidence of this witness is not fit for consideration.
7. The alleged spot mahazar witness Gopinath entered
into the witness box as PW2 and supported the case of
prosecution inrespect of Ex.P2 spot mahazar. It appears from
his evidence that PW1 is his sister-in-law. Since the PW1 has
5 CC No.2410/2014
lead inconsistent evidence before this court, the evidence of
this witness cannot be given much importance.
8. The prosecution has examined two police officials
namely Babu and Anand as PW3 and PW4 respectively.
PW4 has deposed about apprehension of accused on 26-11-
2013 and production before the S.H.O. PW4 has deposed
about receiving the case file for further investigation from
CW9, arrest of accused produced before him, recording the
voluntary statement, recovery of robbed property etc., and
filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation.
9. In theft/robbery cases, what is required to be proved
by prosecution is that the nexus between stolen/robbed article
and accused. But, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution
has failed to secure the presence of seizure mahazar
witnesses inspite of coercive steps taken by this court and the
same is fatal to the case of prosecution. In this view of fact,
the whole case of prosecution has been rendered weak and
6 CC No.2410/2014
hence this court does not deem it proper to base conviction
on the evidence available on record. Hence, viewing from
multi dimensional angle, I hold that there is no sufficient,
positive and material evidence to bring home the guilt of
accused person. In the result, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
The interim custody of property at Ex.P3 already granted in favour of PW1 is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10-01-2017) (Rudolph Pereira), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
7 CC No.2410/2014ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Gowthami
P.W.2 : Gopinath
P.W.3 : Babu
P.W.4 : Anand
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Photograph
Ex.P.4 : Recovery Mahazar
(True Copy)
Ex.P.5 : Voluntary Statement of
Accused Person (Copy)
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.8 CC No.2410/2014
10-01-2017 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
The interim custody of property at Ex.P3 already granted in favour of PW1 is hereby made absolute.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.