Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs Date Of Release Of A1 And 2 31.05.2014 on 8 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
Serial Number of the C.C.24392/2014
case
Name of the State by Police Sub
complainant Inspector, Kengeri Police
station.
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1). Ravi,
person S/o.Late. Nataraj,
Aged about 29 years,
R/o.Ward No.31, Near
Maddurramma Temple,
Hanumanth Nagar,
Ramnagar Tq.,
2). Sundar,
S/o.Govindraju,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o.VinayakaNagar,
Arkavathy Layout,
Near H.P.Gas godown,
Ramanagar Tq., and
District.
(Reptd. by Sri.Srinivas...
Adv.,
2 C.C.24392/2014
Date of commencement 10.03.2014
of offence
Name of informant of Sri.S.Nagaraja
crime
Offences complained of U/Sec.380 of the IPC
Date of arrest of A1 and 2 - 31.05.2014
accused
Date of release of A1 and 2 31.05.2014
accused on bail
Date of commencement 05.03.2018
of recording evidence
Date of closure of 21.06.2018
recording evidence
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused and Not guilty
his examination :
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 08.08.2018
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C I. The facts which are necessary to decide this case are as under: 1 (a).
The allegations against the accused :
That, on 10.03.2014, at about 3.00 P.M in the afternoon, the accused no.1 and 2 committed theft of 20 3 C.C.24392/2014 grams of golden ornaments from the house of C.W.1 Nagaraju, situated at No. 1656, 6th Main road, Near Robin Theatre, Kengeri Upangar. Thereby the accused committed the offences punishable U/s. 454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
2. After submitting the charge sheet, criminal case against accused no.1 and 2 came to be registered. Section 207 Cr.P.C complied. Accused no.1 and 2 were arrested and enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy furnished to the accused no.1 and 2. The charge framed for the offences punishable U/s.454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC and read over to the accused no.1 and 2. Accused denied the charges leveled against them as false and pleaded not guilty.
3. On behalf of prosecution, evidence of P.W.1 to 4 adduced and documents as per Ex.P.1 to 8 are got marked.
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances found against them as false. No defence evidence on behalf of accused. 4 C.C.24392/2014
5. Heard both sides,
6. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the reasons stated below:
II. Brief statement of reasons
1. On behalf of the prosecution, the informant of crimeC.W.1 by name S.Nagaraj examined as P.W.1. This witness in the chief examination deposed that on 10.03.2014 his wife informed him about theft and thereafter he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 and police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2. Further he deposed that police recovered the stolen property and informed the same and he received the stolen property and for his interim custody. The photo of the stolen property is marked as per Ex.P.3. This witness did not depose as per case of the 5 C.C.24392/2014 prosecution. Hence, this witness is permitted to be treated as hostile witness.
In the cross examination it is suggested that on the date of incident, all the family members had been to Kollegal and at that time theft was committed. This specific suggestion is denied as false by P.W.1. Further it is suggested that police shown the accused no.1 and 2 in the police station and this P.W.1 given additional statement as to identification of the accused. This specific suggestion is also denied as false by P.W.1. Additional statement of the witness is marked as per Ex.P.4.
The counsel for the accused has not disputed the evidence of P.W.1.Though the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged on record, the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to establish that theft was committed in the house of C.W.1. But evidence of P.W.1 is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
2. The P.W.2 police constable in his evidence deposed that himself and C.W.10 secured the accused and 6 C.C.24392/2014 produced before Investigating Officer along with Ex.P.5 Report.
3. P.W.3 one Sri.Ravi Parik in his evidence deposed that about 3 years back police came to his shop and recovered the alleged stolen property and he identified Ex.P.3Photo of the stolen property. The seizure mahazar under which the stolen property is recovered is marked as Ex.P.6, since this P.W.3 identified his signature in the mahazar.
Further this court observed that this P.W.3 not claiming his right over the stolen property. This P.W.3 not identified the accused before court. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborating to the evidence of P.W.1 to the extent of occurrence of theft, and evidence of P.W1 and 3 not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
4. P.W.4Investigating Officer deposed explaining the investigation done by him.
5. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Repeatedly NBW was issued against other witnesses. It was reported that 7 C.C.24392/2014 C.W.2 and 3 left the address and were not traced and C.W.5 and 8 were intimated. After giving sufficient opportunities, by rejecting prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to reissue NBW against C.W.2, 3, 5 and 8, prosecution evidence is taken as closed.
6. During course of trial, the defence of the accused is one of total denial of the case of the prosecution.
7. As I have stated above, the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish that theft was committed in the house of C.W.1. But the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution failed to make out good and sufficient grounds to hold the guilt of the accused and consequently I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following order...
III. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused no.1 and 2 for 8 C.C.24392/2014 the offences punishable U/Sec. 454 and 380 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Accused no.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety stand cancelled.
The interim order as to release of the gold chain is hereby made absolute.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of August 2018).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: S.Nagaraju P.W.2: Pradeep KumarPolice constable12672 P.W.3: Ravi Parik P.W.4: Sri.Lakkanna Ramappa Masaguppi -P.S.I
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P.1:-Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature Ex.P.3 :Photograph of the chain Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.5: Report Ex.P.5(a): Signature 9 C.C.24392/2014 Ex.P.6: Seizure mahazar Ex.P.6(a,b); Signatures Ex.P.7 & 8: Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P.7(a,b) & 8(a, b)Signatures
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.