Bangalore District Court
State By Siddapura Police vs Has To Appear Before The Court He Has ... on 12 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th day of May 2022
Present:
Smt. Reshma Jane Rodrigues,
M.Com., L L.M.,
II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC.No.13435/2021
2. Date of commission : 01-01-2019 to 27-01-2021
of the offence (As per F.I.R.)
3. Name of the complainant : State by Siddapura Police
Station
4. Name of the accused : Sadiq s/o late Athaulla,
24 years, R/at Riyaz
Khan House, Athik
Masjid Back,
Jayanagara 1st block,
Bengaluru City.
5. The offences complained : U/Sec.229(A) of IPC and Sec.
of 25 (1B), 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Accused is acquitted
8. Date of order : 12-05-2022
2 CC No.13435/2021
The Police Sub-Inspector of Siddapura Police Station
has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable Under Section 229(A) of IPC and Section 25
(1B), 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
It is the case of the prosecution that a non-bailable
warrant was issued against the accused in SC No.186/20
in Cr.No.87/13 and inspite of being aware that the
accused has to appear before the court he has remained
absent and hence it is alleged that he has committed an
offence under section 229(A) of IPC. In addition, it is
alleged that the accused was found in possession of an
iron Hatcher and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is released on bail. After furnishing
charge sheet copies as required under Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C., Charge against accused for the alleged offences
was framed, read over and explained in the language
known to him, wherein he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. In the charge sheet 05 witnesses are cited and
the prosecution has got examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and
relied upon Exs.P1 to 3 and material object -1.
3 CC No.13435/2021
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused, as
required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the
accused has denied the prosecution case in toto and
opted not to adduce any defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides.
7. P.W.1-Santhoshkumar is the cited witness and in
his chief examination he has deposed that he was directed
to trace the accused in SC No.87/2013 and the accused
has violated the bail conditions and was absconding and
hence NBW was issued against the accused and on
search of the accused he was found at 5.15 p.m. near
Hosur road and on his search he was found in possession
of an iron hatcher and the accused was produced before
the police station along with Ex.P.1 report. He has been
cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused
and in his cross examination he has deposed that the
photo of the accused was given at the time of search of
the accused. It is suggested in the cross examination of
P.W.1 that there is no nexus between MO-1 and the
accused and the accused was arrested from his house
and a false case is registered against the accused.
8. P.W. 2-Arasan is the witness and he has deposed
that Ex.P2 mahazar was drawn in his presence in the
4 CC No.13435/2021
police station and he has signed in the police station and
the accused was present in the station at that time. He
has been cross examined and it is elicited in his cross
examination that no notice was given to him for drawing
the mahazar. He has deposed that MO-1 was on the table
at the time of panchanama.
9. P.W. 4-Rajan is also the witness and he has
deposed that Ex.P.2 mahazar was drawn in his presence
in the police station and he has signed in the police
station and the accused was present in the station at that
time. He has been cross examined and it is elicited in his
cross examination that no notice was given to him for
drawing the mahazar. He has deposed that MO-1 was
under the table at the time of panchanama. He has also
deposed that he does not know who typed Ex.P.2 and he
does not know the contents of Ex.P.2.
10. P.W.3-Abraham has also giving evidence in
corroboration to the evidence given by P.W.1. He has
deposed that the accused was traced by CW 1 and 2 and
produced before him and of having registered case against
the accused and obtaining voluntary statement of the
accused and drawing the panchanama and that he has
filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of
investigation.
5 CC No.13435/2021
11. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses
discloses that there is no mahazar at the spot at the time
of seizure of MO-1 from the accused and the mahazar is
drawn at the police station. Hence there is no clear
evidence to show that the accused was in possession of
MO-1 at the time of his arrest and to clear nexus between
MO-1 and the accused. In addition, the prosecution has
not produced any document much less the non bailable
warrant to show that the accused has remained absent
and has not appeared in the Sessions case and to show
that he has violated the bail conditions. The said arrest
warrant is not marked as an exhibit by the prosecution in
this case. Hence, there is no clear evidence placed on
record by the prosecution to show that the accused has
committed offence under section 229(A) of IPC.
12. In addition the entire case of the prosecution is
based on the evidence of police officials which is not
corroborated by any independent witnesses. It is possible
that since the accused is involved in other cases a false
case is registered against the accused in order to secure
his presence by using MO-1 which is not connected to the
accused. The fact that the accused is involved in many
cases goes to show that the police officials are interested
witnesses and have every reason to falsely implicate the
accused. Hence there is no satisfactory material placed on
6 CC No.13435/2021
record by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused. Taking an overall view of
the matter the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt
and therefore will have to be acquitted of the charges
against him. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
: ORDER :
Accused is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable Under Section 229(A) of IPC and Sect.25 (1B), 27 of Arms Act.
Bail bond of accused and that of his surety stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
After completion of appeal period, the MO-1 shall be destroyed.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of May 2022) (Reshma Jane Rodrigues) II A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
7 CC No.13435/2021:ANNEXURE :
List of witness examined for prosecution :-
P.W-1 : Santhosh Kumar.C P.W-2 : Arasan P.W-3 : Abraham P.W-4 : Rajan List of witnesses examined for defense:-
-NIL -
List of documents marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P-1 : Report Ex.P-2 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P-3 : F.I.R
List of documents marked for defense:-
- NIL -
List of material objects:-
MO-1 : Iron Hatcher (ªÀÄZÀÄÑ) II A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.8 CC No.13435/2021
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) : ORDER :
Accused is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable Under Section 229(A) of IPC and Sec.25 (1B), 27 of Arms Act.
Bail bond of accused and that of his surety stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
After completion of appeal period, the MO-1 shall be destroyed.
II A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.