Bangalore District Court
State By Sub-Inspector Of Police vs Giriyappa on 13 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF APRIL, 2017
C.C. NO. 10735/2012
Complainant State by Sub-Inspector of Police
Sheshadripuram Police station
-Vs-
Accused 1.Giriyappa,
S/o.Late.Yellakaiah,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at.Kambalapura village,
Kembalalu Post,
Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur.
2. K.C.Nagaraj,
S/o.Cheluvaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/a.MIG-2, KHB Colony,
A.M.Palya, Tumkur.
3. Y.Venkatesh,
S/o.Yellakaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
R/At.No.290, EWS quarters,
2nd stage, KHB Colony,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-79.
The date of commission 15.04.2001
of the offence :
Name of the informant of Dr.D.Narayanaswamy
crime
The offences complained U/secs.419, 420, 468,
of: 471, 511 r/w Sec. 34 of
IPC
2 C.C.NO.10735/2012
Arrest of accused 17.07.2011
Bail granted on A1-19.07.2011
A2 & A3- are on Hon'ble
High Court bail
Commencement of Nil
recording prosecution
evidence
Closure of recording Nil
evidence
State represented by Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused represented by K.Abhinav Anand..Adv.,
Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination :
Final Order : Accused acquitted
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Sub-Inspector of Police of Sheshadripuram police station filed this charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3, in Crime No.17/2011, for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case runs thus; One Chaluvaiah applied to the BDA for allotment of a site No.31, measuring 20ft x 30ft at 1st Block, (Valagerahalli) Jnanabharathi Extension, Bangalore, and said Chaluvaiah died before allotment of site. Thereafter accused no.1 to 3 colluding with each other with dishonest intention, by personating deceased Chaluvaiah, submitted forged documents to the BDA in order to procure benefits from 3 C.C.NO.10735/2012 BDA and accused no.1 pasted his photo on the ration card and forged the signature of deceased Cheluvaiah and fraudulently used the Caste Certificate, Income certificate and ration card as genuine and thereby the accused committed the above said offences.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offences is taken and criminal case against the accused came to be registered.
4. The accused appeared and were enlarged on bail. The Section 207 of Cr.P.C. complied. The charge is framed and read over to the accused no.1 to 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution in order to prove its case no oral evidence adduced and no documents got marked.
6. Since no evidence of prosecution against the accused, recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence.
4 C.C.NO.10735/2012
7. I have heard the arguments.
8. The following point that arise for my consideration is:
1) Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts?
My finding on the above point No.1 is in the Negative.
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Repeatedly NBW was issued against CW.1 to 5. The NBW was issued through DCP and Commissioner of Police also. Proclamation was also issued against C.W.1 to 5. For one or the other reasons the witnesses could not be secured.
10. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar 900 (State of Kar v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not prosecuting injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".5 C.C.NO.10735/2012
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
11. In this present case on hand, after giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the witnesses. The matter is of the year 2012. The adjournment would cause prejudice to the rights of the accused. With this view, as per order dated 11.04.2017, prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to re-issue NBW is rejected and examination of C.W's 1 to 5 is dropped. The prosecution evidence is taken as Nil. However, liberty was given to the prosecution to secure and examine the witnesses before pronouncing judgment.
12. After going through the entire material available on the record, this court comes to the clear conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. With this view I answer above said point no.1 in the negative and pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 248 (1) of
Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Sec.
34 of IPC.
6 C.C.NO.10735/2012
The accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forth with.
The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 and surety stand cancelled.
The accused no.1 to 3 are directed to
execute personal bond for sum of
Rs.10,000/-each for their appearance
before appellate Court, if necessary.
(Typed to my online dictation by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of April 2017.) (Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws: Nil
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps: Nil
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Nil
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.