Bangalore District Court
State By Jalahalli Ps vs Had Won The Confidence Of Complainant By ... on 21 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE
Dated this the 21st day of January 2020
Present : Smt. Reshma Jane Rodrigues,
M.Com., L.L.M.
IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 CR.PC.,
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No. 2913/2013
2. The date of commission
of the offence : 2006
3. Name of the complainant : State by Jalahalli PS
4. Name of the accused : A1: V.Shanti @ Shantamma, 60 Yrs.,
W/o Late Vaidyanathan,
R/a. No.150, Gurukrupa,
Mahaveer Corner,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru60.
5. The offences complained : U/s.406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of order : 21.01.2020
The Jalahalli police have filed split up charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 506 r/w 34
of IPC.
2 CC.NO.2913/2013
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.1 to 5
were neighbours of complainant and were residing in a rented
house from 2002 and had thus got acquainted with her. The
accused had won the confidence of complainant by pretending to
be her friends and after the husband of complainant passed away
they took her husband's insurance money, the proceeds of Sriram
Chits and also took her gold bangles and pledged the same and
took totally about Rs.3 Lakhs. Thereafter the accused got the
khata of a house property which was in the name of complainant's
deceased husband changed to complainant's name and by stating
that, they have financial difficulty made complainant to mortgage
the said house for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ and took the said money
for themselves stating that they would repay the loan amount. The
accused themselves made complainant a member of the M/s.
Daivagna Cooperative Society Ltd. before obtaining loan in her
name. The first accused stood surety for the said loan. Thereafter
the accused paid only a few installments and stopped repayment of
loan. Complainant herself paid the entire balance loan amount
and when she went to ask the accused persons they intimidated
her stating that, they would do away with her life. On the said
allegations the charge sheet has been filed for the offences u/s.406,
420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The accused No.1 was enlarged on bail and after filing charge
sheet and summons was issued to the accused. After service of
3 CC.NO.2913/2013
summons accused appeared before the court and copy of charge
sheet was furnished to the accused in compliance of Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. Later the charge was recorded and the accused has
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in the charge sheet.
The prosecution has adopted the evidence of witnesses deposed in
main case in CC No.28928/2009 and also adopted the documents
marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.42.
5. 313 statement of the accused was recorded and the accused
has denied all the incriminating evidence and has not choosen to
lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard the learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused.
7. The present acused No.1 was split up from the main case CC
28928/2009 and separate criminal case was registered. However,
as far as the evidence on the side of the prosecution and defence
side is concerned, the evidence on the side of prosecution and
defence side is adopted from the main case and hence the same
observations made in the judgment in CC No.28928/2009 will
apply to this case.
8. As per the prosecution case, the accused No.1 to 5 were
neighbours of PW1 and were residing in a rented house from 2002
and had thus got acquainted to PW1. The accused had won the
4 CC.NO.2913/2013
confidence of PW1 by pretending to be her friends and after the
husband of PW1 passed away they took her husband's insurance
money, the proceeds of Sriram Chits and also took PW1's gold
bangles and pledged the same and took totally about Rs.3 Lakhs.
Thereafter the accused got the khata of a house property which
was in the name of PW1's deceased husband changed to PW1's
name and by stating that, they have financial difficulty made PW1
to mortgage the said house for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ and took
the said money for themselves stating that they would repay the
loan amount. The accused themselves made PW1 a member of the
M/s. Daivagna Cooperative Society Ltd. before obtaining loan in
her name. The first accused stood surety for the said loan.
Thereafter the accused paid only a few installments and stopped
repayment of loan. PW1 herself paid the entire balance loan
amount and when she went to ask the accused persons they
intimidated her stating that, they would do away with her life. On
the said allegations the charge sheet has been filed for the offences
u/s.406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.
9. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.29 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 who
is the aggrieved witness states that, she is residing at Yalahanka
for 25 years, in 2002 her husband passed away, she has got two
sons and among them one is studying B.Com. and another is
studying M.Tech. She states that, at Sundaranagar in yalahanka,
the first accused's faster daughter and her husband were residing
5 CC.NO.2913/2013
next to PW1's house and the first accused was frequently visiting
her faster daughter's house and thus she has got acquainted to
PW1. She states that, after her husband passed away his
insurance money, Sriram chits fund money was realised and the
accused No.1 to 5 represented to her that they were in urgent
financial difficulty and therefore she gave the above said amounts
to them and at first the accused requested for help and at that time
she gave her gold bangles and the accused pledged the same and
took the money. She states that, in all the accused had taken
Rs.3 Lakhs. She states that, the accused did not repay the said
money and kept on postponing and afterwards they got the khata
of her husband's house property changed to her name and then
again represented them, they were having financial problem and
made her to mortgage the house property to Daivagna Cooperative
Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.3,50,000/. She states that, the
accused took the said money and the first accused stood as surety
and thereafter they paid a few installments of the loan and
defaulted. She states that, she received a notice for RS.5,20,000/
from the above said bank stating that, if she did not pay the loan
amount her house would be put to auction sale. She further states
that, she informed the accused persons of the notice and at that
time the accused gave a cheque for Rs.3,500/ and assured that,
they would pay the remaining installments regularly. But however
did not repay the loan and hence another notice was received from
bank. She states that, when she went to the accused to inform
about the second notice, but they threatened to do away with her
6 CC.NO.2913/2013
life if she again went near the gate of their apartment. She states
that, thereafter she lodged complaint to police as per Ex.P.1 with
the help of human organisation. She states that, she repaid the
remaining loan amount of Rs.4,90,000/ and Ex.P.2 is the receipt
for the same, Ex.P.3 is her pass book, Ex.P.4 is the receipt for the
second accused paying Rs.50,000/. She states that, Ex.P.5 is the
cheque for Rs.35,000/ which had been issued by the first accused
and Ex.P.6 is the endorsement of the bank regarding dishonor of
the said cheque, Ex.P.7 is another cheque for Rs.15,000/ which
had been issued by the first accused and Ex.P.8 is the
endorsement of the bank regarding dishonor of the said cheque.
She states that, Ex.P.9 is the cheque for Rs.30,000/ which
advocate been issued by the first accused and Ex.P.10 is the
endorsement of the bank regarding dishonor of the said cheque
and Ex.P.11 is another endorsement given at the time of
presentation of the cheque for the second time. She states that,
the first accused had pledged gold bangles as per Ex.P.12 receipt
and had taken money.
10. PW2 to PW4 state that, they know PW1 as well as accused
persons, she was often visiting PW1's house. The first accused was
residing in a neighbouring house of PW1, the remaining accused
were also residing with the first accused, PW1 and the first accused
had mother and daughter kind of relationship. PW2 further states
that, in 2006, one day at 11.00 a.m. she was taking to PW1 near
PW3's house, at that time the first accused came to meet PW1 and
7 CC.NO.2913/2013
asked her to lend Rs.20,000/ but Pw1 stated that she did not
have money and thereafter she asked PW1 to get money from
others and hence PW1 approached PW2 to help the first accused
but she did not have money and then the first accused asked PW1
to give her gold bangles stating that within a week she would
return the same and PW1 accordingly gave her two gold bangles to
the first accused. She states that, later she learnt that the first
accused pledged the gold bangles and availed a loan and she
advised PW1 that, she should not give her ornaments to anybody
in the way she did. She states that, again after a few days, PW3
and herself had gone to the PW1's house and at that time accused
No.1 and her soninlaw the 5th accused were present and they
were asking PW1 for Rs.15,000/ for getting the khata of PW1's
husband's house changed in her name and a few days later PW1
told that, she had helped the accused to get loan by mortgaging her
house to bank and because the accused did not repay the loan
amount she has received notice for payment of the same. PW3 and
PW4 have also supported the above version. PW5 the Investigating
Officer has deposed about the investigation conducted in the case.
PW6, the Secretary of the bank states that, PW1 had borrowed loan
and she repaid the entire amount an closed the account. PW7
states that, he is a tenant of PW1 and PW1 told him about the fist
accused taking loan of Rs.3,50,000/ by mortgaging PW1's house
and thereafter cheating her.
11. On behalf of the accused, DW1 has given evidence stating
that, PW1 advocate only borrowed loan and the first accused had
8 CC.NO.2913/2013
offered surety for the same and the accused persons have not
cheated PW1.
12. Among the documents produced before the court Pawn ticket
shows that, the first accused had pledged gold ornaments and had
taken loan. Apart from that, PW1 has produced Ex.P.5 cheque
issued in her favour for Rs.35,000/, Ex.P.7 cheque issued in her
favour for Rs.15,000/ and Ex.P.9 cheque issued in her favour for
Rs.30,000/. All the three cheques have been issued by accused
No.1. So, the pawn ticket and cheques belong to the first accused
against whom the case has been split up. There are no documents
as against accused No.2 to 5 against whom the trial has taken
place in the case. It is only the oral evidence which is available in
the case against the accused No.2 to 5. In fact, PW1 states in her
examinationinchief that, accused No.1 was looking after her as
her daughter and therefore she accepted for hypothecating her
ornaments and property to help her. There is no clear evidence
that, accused No.2 to 5 had induced PW1 to part with her property
and ornaments. In fact, PW1's evidence shows that, though the
money which had been raised by pledging gold bangles had not
been repaid she again gave the amounts which she had received
from her husband's insurance and also Sriram chit fund. When
the above said amount was still outstanding and the repayment
was being postponed, she has mortgaged her house to avail loan.
The said circumstances coupled with the absence of direct evidence
about any inducement by the accused persons, there is no material
9 CC.NO.2913/2013
before the court that the accused has misrepresented or induced
PW1 to part with her bangles and property. PW1's evidence if
taken at its face value shows that, she had helped the accused by
lending her jewels and also money she had received from insurance
and chit fund and had also allowed her house property to mortgage
for availing loan.
13. The attract the offence u/s.420 of IPC it should be proved
that, earlier to making the aggrieved party parting with possession
of the property, there is an inducement or false representation.
But in this case there is no evidence to the said effect. As regards
the offence u/s.406 of IPC is concerned, it should be proved that,
there was entrustment and dishonest misappropriation by the
accused. Here the fact that, PW1 had allowed to pledge her bangles
and house property to raise loan and utilise the same to meet the
financial difficulty of the first accused cannot be considered as
entrustment or misappropriation.
14. PW1 has deposed about the accused threatening her. But
the said offence is not cogent enough and there is no corroboration
for the same. PW2 has deposed only against accused No.1. She
has not deposed about accused No.2 to 5 asking PW1 for help or
taking jewels or money from her. PW3 states that, in her house
PW1 gave jewels to the first accused, but PW4 states that, in PW1's
house itself PW1 gave jewels namely bangles to the first accused
and at that time except PW1 the first accused and herself , none
else was present. So whether the bangles were given to the first
10 CC.NO.2913/2013
accused is also contradiction. Apart from that, PW3 and PW4 have
also not mentioned about accused No.2 to 5 being present when
bangles were given to the first accused. PW2 to 4 have not deposed
anything about personally witnessing the accused persons taking
Rs.3,50,000/ the loan amount which was raised in the name of
the PW1 by mortgaging her house. Therefore, except for PW1's oral
statement there is no material before the court which corroborates
her case that, accused No.2 to 5 had also induced her to part with
her money, jewels and also to mortgage her house property thereby
giving the loan amount to the accused persons. There are material
contradictions in the evidence and PW2 to PW4 have not stated
much against accused No.2 to 5 and hence I am of the opinion
that, the prosecution has not proved the offences u/s.406, 420 and
506 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.406, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and that of her surety stands cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of January 2020) (Reshma Jane Rodrigues) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
11 CC.NO.2913/2013ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW.1 : Smt. Rathna PW.2: Smt.Meera Bai PW.3: Smt. Rajamma PW.4: Smt.Lakshmi PW.5: V.K.Nagaraju PW.6: R.Ashok PW.7: Nanjegowda H.
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Receipt for payment of loan amount. Ex.P.3 : Pass book of complainant. Ex.P.4 : Receipt for the second accused paying Rs.50,000/. Ex.P.5 : Cheque for Rs.35,000/ issued by the first accused Ex.P.6 : Endorsement regarding dishonor of the said cheque. Ex.P.7 : Another cheque for Rs.15,000/ issued by the first accused. Ex.P.8 : Endorsement regarding dishonor of the cheque. Ex.P.9 : Cheque for Rs.30,000/ issued by the first accused.
Ex.P.10 : Endorsement regarding dishonor of the cheque. Ex.P.11 : Another endorsement. Ex.P.12 : Receipt for pledging the gold bangles. Ex.P.13 : Letter written to Society. Ex.P.14 : Letter from society. Ex.P.15 : Copy of Sale deed dated 14.7.2005. Ex.P.16 : Copy of possession certificate. Ex.P.17 : Copy of contract agreement. Ex.P.18 : Copy of letter regarding distribution of houses from KHB.
Ex.P.19 : Copy of Office Memorandum. Ex.P.20 : Form No.3.
Ex.P.21 : Form No.15.
Ex.P.22 : Form No.15 Ex.P.23 : Copy of Runabhara Mahiti letter.
12 CC.NO.2913/2013Ex.P.24 : Copy of Receipt of municipality. Ex.P.25 : Copy of loan sanction order. Ex.P.26 : Copy of meeting notice. Ex.P.27 : Copy of demand notice sent by society. Ex.P.28 : Letter written by police to society. Ex.P.29 : Reply to the letter of police.
List of M.O.s marked for prosecution : NIL List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of accused :
DW1 : Shobha Bai (Reshma Jane Rodrigues) IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
13 CC.NO.2913/201321.01.2020 State by Sr.APP Accused For judgment ORDER (pronounced in open court vide separate order) Acting U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.406, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and that of her surety stands cancelled.
(Reshma Jane Rodrigues) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.