Bangalore District Court
Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru vs Naveen Kumar on 10 March, 2025
KABC030571692023
Presented on : 13-12-2023
Registered on : 13-12-2023
Decided on : 10-03-2025
Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 28 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 10th Day of March, 2025
C.C. No.32523/2023
(Crime No.128/2023)
State by Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri.Naveen Kumar
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri Nagarajappa,
R/at No.48, 4th Main,
Near Shani Mahathma Temple,
Pipe Line Road, Bhuvaneshwari
Nagar, T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri N.Dinakar., Advocate
KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023
1. Date of commission of 17/10/2023
offence
2. Date of FIR 18/10/2023
3. Date of Charge sheet 04/11/2023
4. Date of framing of 23/12/2024
charges
5. Name of Complainant Sri Piyush Nagotra
6. Offences complained of U/Sec. 384 of IPC
7. Date of commencement 07/03/2025
of evidence
8. Charge Pleaded not guilty
9. Date of Judgment is 10/03/2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 10/03/2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
2 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/20232. Prosecution Case: On 17-10-2023, CW1 namely Sri Piyush Nagotra, CW4 namely Sri Mahesh and CW5 namely Sri Balaji were going from Sainikpuri to Yashwantpura via Hebbal in an Uber Cab car, when a little ahead of Hebbal, the accused came on a two-wheeler stopped the car, told them that he was a policeman, threatened them and took CW1 in his vehicle to HP Petrol Bunk, near Q-3 Hotel, MES Road, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station threatened CW1 and took an i-Phone 15 from him and ran away from the spot.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by CW1, CW12 namely Sri Shekhar Mudavi, PSI of Jalahalli Police Station registered Crime No.128/2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, prepared FIR and sent the same to his superior officer and to the court.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, he drawn spot mahazar on 18/10/2023, recorded the statements, collected the documents and submitted the charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
3 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/20236. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 25/10/2023.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.384 of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to prove its case, CW1 examined as PW1 and exhibited 3 documents. The learned Senior APP prayed for issuance of witness summons to other witnesses however his prayer was rejected on the ground that no purpose would be served as PW1 has not supported the prosecution case and hence the examination of CW2 to CW12 was dispensed with by the order dated 07-03-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: There are no incriminating evidence found against the accused and hence the examination of accused as per Section 313 of CRPC has been dispensed with.
4 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/202311. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 17-10-2023 at HP Petrol Bunk, near Q-3 Hotel, MES Road, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station the accused on the guise of police, threatened CW1 namely Sri Piyush Nagotra and took an i-Phone 15 from him and ran away from the spot, thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.384 of IPC?
2. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order 5 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023 REASONS
14. Point No.1:- In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the witnesses which are as follows
(i) CW1 by name Sri Piyush Nagotra being Informant examined as PW1 and identified his signatures on Ex.P1 (complaint) and Ex.P2 (Spot Mahazar) as per Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P2(a). When he went to police station for sorting out the dispute amongst him and accused, the police obtained his signatures on the said documents. He pleaded ignorance about the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answer has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of the statement given before police is marked as Ex.P3.
15. In this case the PW1 being informant cum victim did not support the prosecution case. Though the prosecution has cross-examined this witness by treating as hostile witness, no favorable evidence has been elicited to support the prosecution case and he deposed falsely to help the accused. This court is of the opinion that even if other witnesses were 6 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023 examined by the prosecution and they supported the prosecution case that would not helpful as PW1 himself does not support the prosecution case. This court has dispensed with the examination of other witnesses which could be only formal in nature and hence taken the prosecution evidence as closed.
16. It is a settled law that in order to bring home guilt of accused, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt however in the case on hand, absolutely there are no materials to connect the accused in the commission of the alleged offence as discussed above. The prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused is guilt of alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court answers point No.1 in the Negative.
17. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offence punishable U/Sec.384 of IPC.7 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023
(ii) Accused 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) After the expiry of appeal period, the items seized and subjected under PF No.46/2023, i.e. item No.1 vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 03 EJ 0078 shall be returned to its owner/RC holder on proper identification, item No.2 to 5 being worthless shall be destroyed and the interim custody of item No.6 i-phone granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer system, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of March, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
8 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Piyush Nagotra/Informant Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar/PW1 Ex.P3 : Statement of PW1
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.9 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023
10-03-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offence punishable U/Sec.384 of IPC.
(ii) Accused 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) After the expiry of appeal period, the items seized and subjected under PF No.46/2023, i.e. item No.1 vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 03 EJ 0078 shall be returned to its owner/RC holder on proper identification, item No.2 to 5 being worthless shall be destroyed and the interim custody of item No.6 i-phone 10 KABC030571692023 CC 32523/2023 granted in favour of PW1 is made absolute.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
11