Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka Police Station vs No. : 1. Manjunath @ Manja on 11 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 11th day of August 2016
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.11084/2012
Complainant : State by Yelahanka Police station
(By Asst.Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Manjunath @ Manja,
S/o Sadashivaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Siddartha Nagar,
Tumkur.
(By Sri.Shivakumar.S. Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.454, 380 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 12/11/2011 at about 10 a.m. when C.W. 1 Sri. Nithyananda, residing opposite to one Chandrashekar's shop, Bande Road, Tippu Nagar, Near Masjid, Kogilu Layout, 2 C.C.No.11084/2012 Yelahanka, Bengaluru, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, went out by locking the door of his house, by the time his wife returned back to the house at about 11 a.m. she found that, the house door lock was break opened, gold ornaments were stolen from the almara. As such, she has intimated the same to C.W. 1 who has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. Hence, this case came to be registered against the accused No.1. During the course of investigation I.O visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, seized gold articles and subjected the same under P.F. No.98/2011, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 is on bail and he is represented through his counsel. As accused No.2 remained absent, case against him is ordered to be split up.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 454 and 380 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
3 C.C.No.11084/2012
5. The Charge is recorded, contents of Charge has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined eight witnesses as P.W. 1 to 8 and got marked 7 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused No.1 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him and he has not chosen to lead his side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 12/11/2011 at about 10 a.m. when C.W. 1 Sri. Nithyananda, residing opposite to one Chandrashekar's shop, Bande Road, Tippu Nagar, Near Masjid, Kogilu Layout, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, went out by locking the door of his house, by the 4 C.C.No.11084/2012 time his wife returned back to the house at about 11 a.m. she found that, the house door lock was break opened committed lurking house trespass and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, gold ornaments were stolen from the almara by accused No.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC?
3. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.3 : As per final order for the following REASONS
11. Points No.1 and 2: Both these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
12. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 14 witnesses. This case has been registered on the back ground of lurking house trespass in to the house of C.W. 1 5 C.C.No.11084/2012 Sri. Nithyananda by breaking open the lock of the main door and committed theft of gold ornaments belonging to C.W. 1 by accused No.1 along with another accused.
13. Admittedly, on the alleged date of incident and time C.W. 1 and 2 were outside their house, the so called incident occurred in their absence. As such, there cannot be any expectation of direct evidence. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has to establish its case with the help of circumstantial evidences.
14. In this case, the complainant has spoken about lodging of complaint based on the information of theft given by his wife. Even the evidence of C.W. 2 i.e. wife of the complainant is also similar to that of evidence of complainant. In both the evidence, it is stated that, after a month of the alleged incident they were called to identify their stolen articles and at that time, photos of accused have been shown to them. Whereas in the cross-examination, these witnesses have deposed that, they do not remember the face of persons shown to them through photo. Under the circumstances, identification of the accused persons has not been proved by the prosecution. 6 C.C.No.11084/2012 Therefore, based on the evidence of these two witnesses, this court cannot held the accused persons as guilty minded.
15. Seizure mahazar witness has turned completely hostile and nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination. Therefore, evidence of this witness is not helpful the prosecution case.
16. The I.O. i.e. C.W. 14 has spoken only about filing of final report before this court. Therefore, much weight age cannot be attached to his evidence. Another police official has spoken about securing accused on suspicious ground. Since the identification of accused itself is not clear before this court and the seizure mahazar has not supported the case of prosecution it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. That apart, another I.O. has spoken about drawing of mahazar, as already observed, the investigation of I.O. is not supported by the evidence of complainant and as well as seizure mahazar witnesses which resulted in failure of prosecution case. Under the circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of this accused. As a result, the prosecution has failed to 7 C.C.No.11084/2012 prove the charge leveled against the accused No.1 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
18.Point No.3: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Interim custody of M.O.1 to 3 to the complainant is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11th day of August 2016).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.8 C.C.No.11084/2012
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Nithyananda P.W. 2: Smt. Tulasimal P.W. 3: Venkatesh P.W. 4: Ravi.B. P.W. 5: Rajanna P.W. 6: Smt. Anitha Kumar P.W. 7: C. Vasanth Kumar P.W. 8: Hiriyanna
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of P.W. 6 Ex.P.2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of P.W. 6 Ex.P.3 : Photo Ex.P.4 : Report Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W. 3 Ex.P.5 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.6 : Statement of P.W. 5 Ex.P.7 : FIR Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of P.W. 6
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION M.O.1 : Gold chain M.O.2 : One gold finger ring M.O.3 : One pair of gold ear stud (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.9 C.C.No.11084/2012
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Interim custody of M.O.1 to 3 to the complainant is made absolute.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10 C.C.No.11084/2012