Bangalore District Court
State By Sanjaynagara P.S vs Is Acquitted on 5 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 5th Day of February 2021
Present: Sri.Jayaprakash D.R, B.A.,LL.M
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.17401/2011
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 17401/2011
2. The date of commission 01/04/2011
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Sanjaynagara P.S.
4. Name of the accused 1. Venugopal - split up
2. Hari M. s/o Ramaiah, aged
about 22 years, r/at No.127,
next to Church Raghuram
Layout, Ramachandrapura
Jalahally Post, Bangalore - 13
5. The offence complained of U/s. 392 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
2 C.C.No.17401/2011
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order 05022021
For the following:
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of charge sheet submitted by the Police SubInspector of Sanjayanagara PS against the accused for an offence Punishable U/Sec.392 of IPC. In this case, case against accused No.1 was ordered to be split up with a direction to file split up charge sheet against accused No.1.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 01042011 at about 2.00 p.m., in the premises of M.S.Ramaiah PU College when CW1 was filling the application accused along with other accused came near him and put him under threat by showing a razor and forcibly snatched his Nokia Mobile phone and golden chain and fled away in Honda 3 C.C.No.17401/2011 Dio vehicle. Hence, it is contended that the accused along with split up accused No.1 have committed the offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC.
3. The accused No.2 was arrested and produced before the Court on 08042011 and was enlarged on bail on 1304 2011. The provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied by furnishing charge sheet and its enclosures to the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and got marked 7 documents and 2 material objects in its favour. In spite of repeated issuance of process to CW2 to 10 and 12 the prosecution has failed to secure their presence. Hence, they were dropped from examination. The provision u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was complied by recording the statement of accused. 4 C.C.No.17401/2011 The accused denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted that he has got no defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 01042011 at about 2.00 p.m., in the premises of M.S.Ramaiah PU College when CW1 was filling the application accused along with other accused came near him and put him under threat by showing a razor and forcibly snatched his Nokia Mobile phone and golden chain and fled away in Honda Dio 5 C.C.No.17401/2011 vehicle thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 01 042011 at about 2.00 p.m., in the premises of M.S.Ramaiah PU College when CW1 was filling the application accused along with other accused came near him and put him under threat by showing a razor and forcibly snatched his Nokia Mobile phone and golden chain and fled away in Honda Dio 6 C.C.No.17401/2011 vehicle. Hence, it is contended that the accused along with split up accused No.1 have committed the offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the allegations against the accused the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and got marked 7 documents and 2 material objects in its favour. PW1 is the victim/complainant who has lodged first information at Ex.P1 and shown the spot to draw spot mahazar at Ex.P2. PW2 is the PSI who has conducted entire investigation in this case. PW3 is the police Head Constable who along with CW10 to 12 have apprehended accused No.1 on 01042011 and on 0804 2011 along with CW12 apprehended accused No.2 and produced accused No.1 and 2 before the CW14. PW4 is the Head Constable who has apprehended accused No.1 along with PW3.
7 C.C.No.17401/2011
10. When sequences of investigation is appreciated, according to Ex.P1 incident has taken place at 2.00 p.m., and first information is lodged with the police at 3.30 p.m., on the same day. According to version of PW3 on the date of incident itself at 5.15 p.m., the police have apprehended accused No.1 at Nagashettyhally near a jewellery shop. Both PW3 and 4 have stated the same in their evidence. Further, they have stated that upon arresting accused No.1 they have drawn seizure panchanama at Ex.P4 between 5.40 p.m. to 6.20 p.m., as per Ex.P4. However, it is crucial to note that PW1 in his chief examination has deposed that he has caught one of the accused and called the police through his friend's phone and police have taken the person whom he had caught. PW1 also identified the accused no.1 who was produced to the court through video conference as the accused caught by him. It is 8 C.C.No.17401/2011 crucial to note that PW1 was not treated as hostile to the case of the prosecution and he was not subjected to cross examination by APP. If the version of PW1 is to be believed, then the entire deposition of PW2 to 4 with respect to arresting of accused No.1 near a jewellery shop and seizing golden chain from the possession of accused by drawing panchanama at Ex.P4 has to be considered as false story. This contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and official witnesses at PW2 to 4 goes to the root of the case and rises serious doubts about the investigation made by the police in this case.
11. According to PW3 himself and CW2 were deputed for tracing the accused and on 08042011 at about 1.40 a.m., near Devasandra Circle they found accused No.2 in a suspicion manner and apprehended accused No.2 and conducted body search and found a Nokia mobile phone with 9 C.C.No.17401/2011 accused No.2 and they have produced accused No.2 before the IO. According to PW2 after seizing mobile phone from accused No.2 they have drawn panchanama at Ex.P5. It is important to note that Ex.P5 panchanama is drawn in the police station. The panchanama is not drawn in the place where the accused No.2 was alleged to have been apprehended. Moreover, both panch witnesses to Ex.P5 are not secured and examined by the prosecution to prove that the mobile phone at MO2 was seized from the possession of accused No.2. The version of PW3 apprehending accused No.2 cannot be believed mainly on the ground that his version about arresting accused No.1 itself is a doubtful story placed by the investigating agency.
12. PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that CW1 while giving complaint has not given description of the accused persons and they have not conducted test 10 C.C.No.17401/2011 identification parade. PW1 also does not state anything about identifying accused No.2 earlier to giving evidence before the court. For the first time in the court PW1 has stated that the accused No.2 is one among the 3 persons who have robbed his valuables. However, in view of non conducting the test identification parade, the said version of PW1 identifying accused No.2 cannot be believed. Further it is not forthcoming who is the other person out of 3 persons stated in Ex.P1.
13. None of the seizure panchanamas at Ex.P4 to 6 are proved by the prosecution by examining independent panch witnesses. Therefore, seizure of material objects from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 is not duly proved.
14. In view of the above discussion prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 along 11 C.C.No.17401/2011 with accused No.1 have committed the offence alleged against them. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec. 392 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and surety bond stands cancelled after completion of appeal period.
The material objects MO1 to 3 are ordered to be dealt with during trial of split up case. (Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and computerized by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 5 th day of February 2021.) (Jayaprakash D.R.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.12 C.C.No.17401/2011
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Dharshan PW2 : Janardhan Rao PW3 : Gireesh PW4 : Venkatesh
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of witness Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of witness Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P3(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P4 to 6 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4(a) to 6(a) : Signature of witnesses Ex.P7 : Report
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Objects:
MO1 : Chain
MO2 : Mobile
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore
13 C.C.No.17401/2011
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec. 392 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and surety bond stands cancelled after completion of appeal period.
The material objects MO1 to 3 are ordered to be dealt with during trial of split up case.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore