Bangalore District Court
Yamuna vs Azeez Aseef on 10 September, 2024
KABC030146502016
Presented on : 02-03-2016
Registered on : 02-03-2016
Decided on : 10-09-2024
Duration : 8 years, 6 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 10th Day of September, 2024
C. C. No.5653/2016
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Azeez Asif
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri Azeez Aslam,
R/at No.09, Clar Pete Street,
Kamaraja Road, Bharathinagar,
Bengaluru.
KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
2. Sri Asgar Khan
Aged about 20 years,
S/o Sri Kaiser Khan,
R/at Near Al
Amin Hospital, E Block, D.J.Halli,
Benglauru.
Case was split up by the order dated 10-07-2018 in
CC No. 22864/2018
3. Sri Sachin Deshmukh
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Sri Thukaram,
R/at No.02, Lal Masjid Road,
Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Venkatesh Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 04-01-2015
offence
2. Name of Complainant Smt. Yamuna
3. Offences complained of Under Section 392, 411
IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused No.3 is not
found guilty
6. Date of order 10-09-2024
2
KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 392, 411 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 04-01-2015 at 6.45 a.m. within the limits of Sanjay Nagar PS, UAS Layout, 7th B Cross in front of house No.37, the accused No.1 and 2 with common intention to make wrongful gain, snatched/robbed the gold chain from the neck of CW1 namely Smt. Yamuna weighing 64 grams worth Rs.1,20,000/- and ran away in the bike. The accused No.3 knowing well that the gold ornament was stolen article and retained the same with him thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW10/PW3, PI of J.C. Nagara Police Station registered a Crime No.3/2015 against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex. P. 7 and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: During the course of investigation, after receipt of complaint as per Ex.P1, CW10/PW3 registered FIR as per Ex.P7, conducted 3 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas and handed over the case papers to CW11. After receipt of case papers from PW3, CW11/PW5 after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 392, 411 of IPC.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused No. 1 to 3.
6. In view of continuous absence of accused No.1 and 2, the case against them is ordered to be split up by filing separate charge sheet by order dated 10-07- 2018 and hence CC No.22864/2018 came to registered against them.
7. The accused No.3 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 03-04-2019.
8. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
9. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.392, 411 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.3 in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 11 witnesses however examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents and closed their side. The examination of CW2, CW3 to 5 were dropped by order dated 9-10-2023 as CW2 has reported to be dead and CW3 to CW5 have left their address without intimation about their new address. The examination of CW6 and CW8 were given up by the order dated 04-01-2024.
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.3 was examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that On 04-01-2015 at 6.45 a.m. within the limits of Sanjay Nagar PS, UAS Layout, 5 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 7th B Cross in front of house No.37, the accused No.1 and 2 with common intention to make wrongful gain, snatched/ robbed the gold chain from the neck of CW1 namely Smt. Yamuna weighing 64 grams worth Rs.1,20,000/- and ran away in the bike thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 392 R/w section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that with common intention the accused No.3 knowing well that the gold ornament was stolen article and retained the same with him thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 411 R/w section 34 of IPC?
3. What order?
6KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order REASONS
15. Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 Smt. Yamuna being informant examined as PW1 deposed that in the year 2015, January at morning, when she was sweeping in front of her house No.67 situated at 7th B cross, USA Layout, Sanjayanagar, two persons came in bike had snatched/robbed the gold mangalya chain from her neck, as a result of which she fell down and she could not see the bike number. Thereafter she lodged complaint before Sanjay Nagar PS as per Ex.P1, police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. She identified her signatures thereon as Ex.P1(a) and 2(a). After 3 months, the police called me to collect stolen chain from Commercial Street Police Station. Then she went to the said police station and identified her chain and obtained the possession of 7 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 chain . Further she identified the chain as shown in Ex.P3 and 4 -photographs.
ii. CW7 Sri Syed Anish Pasha, the then PC of Commercial Street PS examined as PW2 deposed that, on 16-02-2014, CW9 deputed him, CW6 and CW8 to trace the accused in Crime No.260/2014 and on the receipt of credible information, they apprehended accused No.1 and produced him before CW9. In this regard CW6 submitted report as per Ex.P5.
iii. CW10 Sri Parameshwara Hegde, the then PI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW3 deposed that on receipt of complaint from CW1 on 04-01-2015, he registered the FIR as per Ex.P6, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 on the same day at 8.45 am to 9.45 am in the presence of CW2 and CW3 and handed over the case papers to CW11. He identified his signatures on Ex.P1 and 6 as Ex.P1(b) and 6(a).
iv. CW9 Sri R.S.T.Khan the then PI of Commercial Street PS, examined as PW4 deposed about registration of Crime No.260/2014, prepared FIR as per Ex.P7 and deputed CW6 to CW9 to trace the accused in the said crime. On 16-2-2015 they produced accused No.1 before him and on the basis of voluntary statement of accused, he seized the properties from the possession of accused No.3 Sri 8 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 Sachn Deshmuch at his shop namely Jyothirlinga Silver and Refinery Shop situated at Lal Masjid Road, Shivajinagar through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P8. He subjected the seized properties under PF No.16/2015. On 28-02-2015, he called CW1 of this crime and she identified the accused and her gold mangalya chain weighing 68 grams. On 25-04-2015, she released her chain on execution of indemnity band as per Ex.P6. Further, he identified Ex.P7 and 8 photographs and transferred the case papers to Sanjay Nagar PS on the point of jurisdiction.
v. CW11 Sri K.Prakash, the then PI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station examined as PW5 deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW10, he completed investigation and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences.
16. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of accused.
17. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case is required to prove the following ingredients as mentioned U/s 392 of IPC 9 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
1. Accused committed theft as defined in Section 378 in the process;
2. Accused caused or attempted to cause to some persons -
i) death, hurt or wrongful restraint;
ii) fear of death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
3) Accused did either act -
a) in committing such theft, or
b) in order to commit theft, or
c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by such theft.
4. Accused acted voluntarily.
In the instant case, there is no eye witness to the incident of robbery as the PW1 deposed that the two persons who snatched her chain from neck and on account of which she fell down and could not see the bike number.
18. The counsel for the accused No.3 did not choose to cross examine the PW1 and PW2 on the ground that section 392 of IPC does not relate to the 10 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 accused No.3 as he did not involve in the commission of snatching the chain and hence the accused No.3 is not concerned with Section 392 of IPC.
19. The accused No.3 was arrayed in this case based upon the voluntary statement of accused No.1 which was recorded on 17/02/2025 as follows;
ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಸರ ಅಪಹರಣ, ಸುಲಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂದಿಸಿದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ವಡವೆಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಶಿವಾಜಿನಗರ ಲಾಲ್ ಮಸೀದಿಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಜ್ಯೋತಿರ್ಲಿಂಗ ಸಿಲ್ವರ್ & ರಿಫೈನರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾದ ಸಚಿನ್ ದೇಶಮುಖ್, ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುವ ಅಶ್ವಕ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಆಸ್ತಾ ಅಣ್ಣ ನಯಾಜ್ ಅಹಮದ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ತಾರಾಗಿರುವ ರಿಕೇಶ್ ಎಂಬುವವರನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ, ವಡವೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ, ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಸರವನ್ನು, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.
and hence the accused No.3 was charged for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC. In order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, 11 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Shiv Kumar versus The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746.
20. PW4 has seized the following jewels as per Ex.P8 on 27/02/2015 from 11 am to 12.30 pm at ಬೆಂಗಳೂರುನಗರ ಶಿವಾಜಿನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸು ಠಾಣಾ ಸರಹದ್ದಿಗೆ ಲಾಲ್ ಮಸಿದಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಜ್ಯೋತಿರ್ಲಿಂಗ ಸಿಲ್ವರ್ & ರಿಫೈನರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿ ನಂ. ೦೨ ರ ಮುಂಭಾಗ ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಬಂದಿ ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ ಮಣಿ ಎಂಬುವವರ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ, ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಠಲ್ ರಾವ್ ಎಂಬುವವರ ವಡವೆ ಕರಿಸಿರುವ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ, ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ರಸ್ತೆ ಇದ್ದು ನಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ತುಕಾರಾಮ್ ರವರ ವಡವೆ ಕರಿಸಿರುವ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ, ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ ನಂ ೨ ರ ವಾಸದ ಮನೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.
12KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 The following jewels
೧. ಸುಮಾರು ೨೪ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಸರ
೨. ಸುಮಾರು ೨೪ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಬಳೆ
೩. ಸುಮಾರು ೪೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯ ಸರ
೪. ಸುಮಾರು ೬೪ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯ ಸರ (ಚಿನ್ನದ)
೫. ಸುಮಾರು ೪೮ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯ ಸರ
೬. ೧೨ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಚಿಕ್ಕು ಗುಂಡುಗಳು, ೬ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಕಾಸು, ಹಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಮಾಂಗಲ್ಯ ಒಟ್ಟು ತೂಕ ೨೫ ಗ್ರಾಂ
೭. ಸುಮಾರು ೫೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಸರ
೮. ಸುಮಾರು ೨೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು ಚಿನ್ನದ ಡಾಲರ್
೯. ೬ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಹೆಂಗಸರ ಉಂಗರಗಳು ತೂಕ ೨೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ
೧೦. ಸುಮಾರು ೫೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ನೆಕ್ಲೆಸ್
೧೧. ಸುಮಾರು ೪೦ ಗ್ರಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಚಿನ್ನದ ಸರ and the witnesses to the Ex.P8 are CW4 namely Sri Shaik Pidorsh, Aged about 24 years, S/o. Sri Hussain resident of No.1, Samrudh Arcade, Ibrahim Sahib Street, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore and CW5 namely Sri Akbar Aged about 26 years S/o. Syed 13 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 Mushraf, resident of No.20, 8th cross, Padarayanapura, Bangalore.
21. In the reference to the Ex.P8, the learned counsel for accused No.3 has cross examined the PW3 and PW4 who in turn PW3 deposed as under
ನಾನು ಸ್ಥಳದ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಹೋದಾಗ ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಸುತ್ತಮುತ್ತಲು ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಇದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಂಚರಾಗಿ ಕರೆಯಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಪಂಚರು ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳು ಆಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ.
PW4 deposed that ಸದರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇರುವ ಸ್ಥಳ ಜನಸಂದಣಿ ಇರುವ ಸ್ಥಳ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ಅಂಗಡಿಗಳು ಇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿಯಾ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ಅಂಗಡಿಯವರ ಅಥವಾ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓಡಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸಾವರ್ಜನೀಕರನ್ನು ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಪಂಚರಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
However the CW4 and CW5 are not immediate neighbors as they are of Ibrahim Sahib Street and Padarayanapura, Bangalore and the immediate 14 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 neighbors of Jyothirling and refinery Shop are Mani, Vital Rao, Tukaram and house No.2. The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to speak about the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P8 however the PW4 did not make any attempt to call the local inhabitants for the spot mahazar for the alleged theft taken place on 27/02/2015. It has been held in the case of Pradeep Narayana Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930 wherein it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
22. It appears from cross examination of PW4 that ಶಿವಾಜಿನಗರದ ಲಾಲ್ ಮಸೀದ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜ್ಯೋತಿರ್ಲಿಂಗ ಸಿಲ್ವರ್ ಅಂಡ್ ರಿಫೈನರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿಗೆ ೩ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯೇ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖೆಲೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಇದ್ದ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಸದರಿ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖೆಲೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. Xxxxx ಸದರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿಯೊಳಗೆ ಹೋಗುವ ಮೊದಲು ನಾನು , ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯವರು ಹಾಗೂ ಪಂಚರು ಅಂಗಶೋದನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ 15 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 ಅಂಗಡಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುವ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ದೃಶ್ಯಾವಳಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, it emerges from the cross examination of PW4 that he has not seized the best evidence i.e., CCTV footage which was situated near Jyothirling and refinery Shop. The accused No.1 or any persons through him had gone to the Jyothirling and refinery Shop or the accused No.3 was in possession and control of Jyothirling and refinery Shop could have been established through seizure of CCTV footage. Without any iota of evidence, how this court could accept that the accused No.3 is the owner of Jyothirling and refinery Shop and that the accused with dishonest intention had received the stolen jewels from the accused No.1 or through any persons on behalf of accused No.1.
23. The PW3/IO did not choose to take the photographs of seizure mahazar as per Ex. 8 dated 28/02/2015 to corroborate that the accused No. 3 was present in the Jyothirling and refinery Shop.
24. The PW4/IO did not choose to take/obtain the signature of accused No.3 on seizure mahazar as per Ex.P8 dated 28/02/2015 at the time of drawing of seizure mahazar.
16KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
25. PW4/IO did not ascertain or inquired whether the accused No.3 had the knowledge of stolen jewels.
26. PW4/IO did not seize any documents pertaining to the sale/pledge of jewels from the accused No.3 or any document to show the accountability of aforesaid jewels.
27. To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused No.3 was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable.
28. PW4 had not obtained the seal of Jyothirling and refinery Shop or the signature of accused No.3 was obtained on the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P8. The testimony of PW-3 suggests that a defective procedure was followed in preparing the seizure mahazar and importantly, his testimony does not show that the accused No.3 was aware that he 17 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 received jewels, which had any connection with the theft and robbery. PW3 had not conducted the seizure procedure for the articles seized from the accused No.3 nowhere mentioned that the accused No.3 was aware that the goods seized from him were stolen property. By observing all these discrepancies, the seizure mahazar is found to be totally unreliable.
29. By applying the legal proposition as propounded in Shivakumar's case to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused No.3 had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen jewels. This essential element was not established against the accused No.3 to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against him.
30. That apart, the disclosure statement of accused No.1 cannot be accepted as a proof of the accused No.3 having knowledge of jewels being stolen. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the accused No 3 to believe that the jewelers seized from Jyothirling and refinery Shop or the accused No. 3 was the owner of Jyothirling and refinery Shop were stolen articles. The factum of selling /pledging jewels at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the accused No.3 was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential 18 KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 ingredient of mens Rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC. In this case, when the fundamental evidence is not available and the law leans in favour of accused No.3 thereby this court answer the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
31. Point No.3:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.3 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.392, 411 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.3 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.19
KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case No.22864/2018 registered against accused No.1 and 2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the10th day of September, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Yamuna PW2 : Sri Syed Aneesh Pasha PW3 : Sri Parameshwar Hegde PW4 : Sri R.S.T.Khan PW5 : Sri K.Prakash
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3-4 : Photos
20
KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016
Ex.P5 : Report
Ex.P6 : FIR No.3/2015
Ex.P7 : FIR No.260/2014
Ex.P8 : Seizure Mahazar
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
21KABC030146502016 CC No.5653/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.3 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.392, 411 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.3 is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Keep this file in the split up case No.22864/2018 registered against accused No.1 and 2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
22