Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. My findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final Order for the following:-

REASONS

11. Point No.1:- CW.1 the complainant is examined as PW.2. He has deposed that on 18-6-2014 HP Laptop and Acer Laptop were stolen from his house. He had opened the door on the ground floor of his house and went to upstairs in the morning. In the meanwhile somebody came to the house and stolen the laptops. He did not see the person who committed theft in his house. After about 6 months within a year the police called him and informed that they have recovered laptop stolen from his house. Hence he went to the police station, identified the laptops and lodged complaint as per Ex.P-2. Thereafter police visited his house and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P-1.

12. Ex.P-2 complaint discloses that on 20-5-2014 at about 7-00 a.m., the laptops were stolen from his house. Since he had urgent work at Chennai he went to Chennai and could not lodge the complaint. When he returned from Chennai his neighbour informed that police had brought the accused person to his house saying that the said accused has stolen laptops from his house and that they have recovered the same. Hence he went to the police station and police informed him that they have recovered the Acer Laptop and HP laptop and have subjected the same to the PF No.111/2014 and 113/2014. They also showed him the accused who was arrested in Cr.No.362/2014 and the accused herein has committed theft in the house of PW-2 the complainant. PW-2 was treated as hostile partly as he has deposed that theft had taken place on 18-6-2014 though in complaint he states that theft had taken place on 20-5-2014. He states that he does not remember the date of incident. In the cross- examination it is elicited that he has not produced any documents before the Investigating officer to show that laptop belongs to him. He has deposed that he was working for Sisco Software company and Acer Laptop belongs to the said company. He has not given the particulars of the laptop except stating the names of the laptops and the police have not recorded the further statement of the complainant regarding particulars of the laptops for identity of the same.

16. CW-11 the Investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet is examined as PW-5. He has deposed that he took up further investigation from CW-10 and he released the HP laptop and Acer Laptop to the respective owners and after verifying the papers he submitted the charge sheet. Hence PW-5 has not conducted any investigation in the matter except releasing the laptops to the interim custody of PW-2.

17. As seen from the mahazar Ex.P-4 the accused was taken to Naganeshi Enterprises which is a book shop at BTM Layout 2nd stage as per his voluntary statement and police have recovered two laptops one of the laptop is of black colour Lenovo laptop and another laptop is gray colour Acer company. The accused has informed that he has stolen the same. The laptops stolen from the house of PW-2 is HP laptop and Acer Laptop whereas the laptops seized under Ex.P-4 are Lelnovo laptop and Acer Laptop. No evidence is placed by the prosecution with regard to seizure of HP laptop from the possession of the accused or at the instance of the accused. Out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution CWs-3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are not secured and are not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of the witnesses to the seizure mahazar and the Investigating officer are fatal to the prosecution case. Though PW-2 claims that police have recovered the laptops from the possession of the accused, there are no eye witnesses to the theft that had taken place in the house of PW-2. PW-3 a witness to Ex.P-4 though has partly supported the prosecution case only one laptop is seized under Ex.P-4 belongs to PW-2 and it is not stated by the prosecution as to which is the laptop seized under Ex.P-4 in the presence of PW-3. Further there is no evidence with regard to the seizure of the other laptop. Hence the prosecution has failed to place material evidence by examining material witnesses to prove the seizure of both the laptops stolen from the house of PW-2 from the accused and has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Negative.