Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The PSI, Peenya Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.420 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

Accused on 27.02.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. on NH4, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station., when CW.4 & 7 were checking the tickets of the passengers by bording Bus No.F-4847 the accused found travelling in the BMTC Bus by affixing his photo on the identity card of deceased - T.K. Manjunath, Driver, Badge No.17873 and thereby cheated the BMTC and thereby accused has committed the alleged offence.

3

5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.

6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused on 27.02.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. on NH4, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station., when CW.4 & 7 were checking the tickets of the passengers by bording Bus No.F-4847 the accused found travelling in the BMTC Bus by affixing his photo on the identity card of deceased - T.K. Manjunath, Driver, Badge No.17873 and thereby cheated the BMTC and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s. 420 of IPC.?
In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses but not got marked any documents.

9.PW.1 is the Conductor, PW.2 is the Driver alleged to be on duty on the date of alleged incident.. The witness summons issued to other witnesses, but the prosecution has failed to secure any other witnesses.

10.CW.5 is examined as PW.1, he is a Conductor and he deposed that on 27.02.2013 in between 2.00 - 2.30 p.m. when he was on duty in KSTC Bus bearing No.4847 and Route No.265/A/7 and CW.6 was the driver to the said bus. When the said bus reached to RMC Yard, the CW.4 and 7, who are the checking officers boarded the bus and started to verify the tickets of the passengers, at that time it was found that the accused has misused the card by affixing his photograph to the identity card of another person. In the cross-examination he deposed that he has not produced any documents to show that he is on duty, on the date of alleged incident. He also admitted that there is no documents 5 produced to show that the CW.4 and 7 have boarded the said bus on the date of alleged incident for checking the tickets. He also admitted that several passengers travelling in the bus every day. So he is unable to identify each and every passenger.

11.CW.6 is examined as PW.2, he is the Driver of the said bus. He also deposed that on the date of alleged incident he was on duty as a Driver along with the CW.5, in Jalahalli Cross, Checking Officers boarded the bus and started to verify the tickets of the passengers. He did not know what happened further and what are the conversations between the checking officers and passangers. He is unable to identify the accused and said because of lapse of time he was unable to identify the accused and he has not given any statement to the police. But in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP., he identified the accused and also his statement. Again in the cross-examination by defense counsel, he admitted that when he was on duty, he was unaware about the proceedings or incident took place behind his back in the said bus.