Bangalore District Court
Jayanthi vs Ssrinvias @ Karchi Seena @ Seena on 10 January, 2025
KABC030179622016
Presented on : 16-03-2016
Registered on : 16-03-2016
Decided on : 10-01-2025
Duration : 8 years, 9 months, 25 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 January, 2025
C. C. No.7039/2016
The State by Yeshwanthapura Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Srinivasa @ Karate Seena @ Seena,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Sri Late Gangadharappa,
R/at No.34, Pipeline Road,
Vinayakapura, Near Karnataka
Bank, Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru City.
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
Presently R/at Rajaghatta Cross,
Beside Ravi's Chicken Stall,
Doddaballapura Taluk and
Melekote Grama, Rajanakunte,
Bengaluru.
2. Sri Ramesh (split up)
Aged about 42 years,
S/o late Sri Thammegowda @ Mahagaiaha,
C/o Srinivasa's House, Kashi Badavane,
Kaggalipura Grama, Kanakapura
Main Road, Hattarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk ... Accused
(Represented By Smt. Roopa C Adv for accused No.1)
1. Date of commission of 14-05-2015 to
offence 15-05-2015
2. Name of Complainant Smt. Jayanthi
3. Offences complained of U/Sec.380, 457 of IPC,
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Acquitted
6. Date of order 10-01-2025
2
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Yeshwanthapura Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 380
and 457 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: From 14-05-2015 at
10.00 a.m. to 15-05-2015 at 6.00 a.m., during night
hours, the accused No.1 and 2 in order to commit
the theft lurking house by breaking open the lock of
House No.34/10/2 situated at 4th Cross, 4th Main,
Mattikere within the limits of Yeshwanthapura Police
Station belongs to CW1 namely Smt. Jayanthi and
stolen the gold ornaments weighing 275 grams and
cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from almairah.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of
complaint as per Ex.P1 from CW1 Smt.Jayanthi,
CW30/PW11 PSI of Yeshwanthapura PS Sri
Venkatesh, registered the case in Crime
No.250/2015, prepared FIR as per Ex.P33 and sent
to court and to his superior officers and handed over
the case papers to CW31.
4. Investigation: On receipt of case papers,
CW31/PW7, he continued investigation, deputed the
staff to trace out the accused and property, recorded
the voluntary statement of accused and seized the
3
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
gold ornaments by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P15
and 20 and subjected the same under PF
No.128/2015 and 137/2015 and handed over the
case papers to CW32. After receipt of case papers
from CW31, CW32/PW6 released the gold ornaments
to complainant as per court order as shown in the
photograph Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and handed over the case
papers for further investigation to CW33. CW33 Sri
Krishna.K.L., PI of Yeshwanthpura PS has submitted
the charge sheet against accused persons for the
alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused
No.1 and 2.
6. In view of continuous absence of accused
No.2, the case against him was split up and CC
No.21998/2016 came to be registered against him.
7. The accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by
the order dated 29-11-2016.
8. Copies of prosecution papers as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused No.1.
4
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
9. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused No.1, charge for the offences
punishable u/Sec.457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code
has been framed, read over and explained to the
accused in the language known to him, who, in turn,
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 33 witnesses,
examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents
and closed their side. The evidence of CW6, CW8 and
CW4 and CW7, CW9 and CW10 returned with the
shara as they have left address and their presence
could not be secured in near future and hence the
evidence of CW4, CW6, CW8 and CW7, CW9 and
CW10 was dropped out by the order dated
24/01/2017 and 23/12/2017. The witness summons
to CW15 to 20 were returned with the shara as left
address and hence their examination was dropped
out by the order dated 24/02/2020. The arrest of
accused No.2 was not disputed by the advocate for
accused No.1 and the report was marked as Ex.P12
and on account of marking of Ex.P12, the exam of
CW21 to CW23 was given up by the order dated dated
06/02/2020. NBW against the CW24, 30, 31 and 32
returned unexecuted and hence the examination of
CW24, 30, 31, 33 is dropped out with liberty to
examine them on their secure by the order dated
20/02/2021. In spite of issuance of NBW and
proclamation, the presence of CW26 to CW28 were
dropped out by the order dated 14/08/2023.
5
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
accused No.1 was examined as per section 313 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 complainant
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 14-05-2015 at
10.00 a.m. to 15-05-2015 at 6.00
a.m., during night hours the
accused No.1 with split up
accused No.2 in order to commit
the theft lurking house by
breaking open the lock of House
No.34/10/2 situated at 4th Cross,
4th Main, Mattikere within the
limits of Yeshwanthapura Police
Station belongs to CW1 Smt.
Jayanthi thereby resulted in
commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.457 of IPC?
6
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
2. Whether the complainant
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on above said date,
time and place, the accused No.1
along with split up accused No. 2
committed theft of gold ornaments
weighing 275 grams and cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- by breaking open
lock of almairah thereby resulted
in commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC?
3. What order?
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 orderREASONS
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 following witnesses,
which are as follows
7
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
i. CW1 by name Smt. Jayanthi being first
informant examined as PW1, deposed that on 14-05-
2015 at 10.30 a.m. she went to her parental house
and next day at 6.00 a.m. her neighbour have
informed about theft in her house over phone.
Hence, she went to her house and found that about
275 grams of gold ornament were stolen. In this
regard, she filed complaint as per Ex.P1 and police
drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2 and obtained her
signature. On 17- 07-2015, the police called her to
station and identified her ornaments and accused
No.1. She released the ornament as per Ex.P3 to
Ex.P5 photographs in her favour by executing
indemnity bond. She identified her signatures on
Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 as Ex.P1(a) and 2(a). Her denial of
statement is marked as Ex. P. 6.
ii. CW14 by name Sri Rakesh Kumar examined as
PW2 deposed that the police have not conducted
mahazar in his presence and have not seized any
ornaments. He identified his signature on seizure
Mahazar and hence the certified copy of the same is
marked as Ex.P7. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP
cross examined this witness by treating him as
hostile witness but no favorable answer has been
elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His
denial statement given before the police is marked as
Ex.P8.
8
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
iii. CW3, Sri Abubukar, examined as PW3
deposed that he does not know the accused and
CW6, the police have not seized anything in his
presence and has not obtained his signature on
seizure mahazar. But, in the seizure mahazar, his
name was appeared and hence the same is marked as
Ex.P8. The police did not record his statement. In
this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross examined this
witness by treating him as hostile witness but no
favorable answer has been elicited from him to
substantiate Ex.P9 seizure mahazar. His denial
statement given before police is marked as Ex.P10.
iv. CW13 by name Sri Hariram examined as
PW4 deposed that he was running pawn brokers
business in the name and style Sri Jai Bajarangi
Pawn Brokers since 8 years. On 09-06-2015, accused
persons and police came to his shop and received
gold earrings and ring from him which was pledged
by accused. The same were seized under seizure
mahazar as per Ex.P11 drawn from 2 p.m. to 2.45
p.m., he along with one Rakesh and Kushal have put
their signatures on Ex.P11. Further he identified his
signature as per Ex.P11(a) and pawn receipt as
Ex.P11 and his signature as Ex.P11(a) and signature
of accused No.2 as Ex.P11(b) and photograph as
Ex.P3.
9
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
v. CW2 Sri Sampath, examined as PW5 deposed
that on 15-05-2015 the police have drawn mahazar
as per Ex.P2 in the house of CW1 regarding theft and
obtained his signature on the said document as per
Ex.P2(b).
vi. CW32 by name Sri Rajaram.B.T., the then
PSI of Yeshwanthapura PS, deposed that on receipt of
case papers from CW31, he released the gold
ornaments in favour of complainant, at that time
Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 photographs were taken and
thereafter he handed over the case papers for further
investigation to CW33.
vi. CW31 by name Sri S.Narasimhamurthy, the
then PSI of Yeshwanthapura PS examined as PW7
deposed that on 12-07-2015, he deputed CW25 to 27
to trace out the accused and property in respect of
crime No.187/2015. Accordingly, CW25 produced
accused before him along with report as per Ex.P13.
Then he arrested accused, recorded his voluntary
statements as per Ex.P14 and 15. On 14-07-2015,
he took the accused along with panchas and one Sri
Dugganna to Mannapuram Finance, from whom
accused pawned the jewels, the Manager/CW16 of
Mannapuram Finance recognized said Dugganna and
accepted his business with him and produced the
ornaments which were seized under seizure mahazar
Ex.P16 and subjected the same under PF
No.128/2015 which is marked as Ex.P17. He
10
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
identified two pawn receipts as Ex.P18 and Ex.P19.
On 17-07-2015, Smt. Manjula, the sister of accused
No.1 produced the items which were subjected to PF
No.137/2015 and the same was seized by drawing
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P20. He recorded the
statement of CW17 to 20, further statement of CW1
and identified his signatures as Ex.P13(a), 16(a), 20(a)
and PF No.137/2015 as Ex.P21 and Photographs as
per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.
vii. CW24 by name Sri Mahesh.M., the then PSI
of R.T.Nagar PS examined as PW8 deposed that on
07-06-2015, CW19 to 21 produced accused No.2 in
Crime No.363/2014 along with seized Navarathna
gold ring from the possession of accused. He arrested
the accused, recorded his voluntary statement and
seized the said gold ring in presence of CW4 and CW5
under the Ex.P8 seizure mahazar and subjected the
same to property form as per Ex.P22. He recorded
the statement of witnesses and voluntary statement
of accused No.2 as Ex.P23. On 8-6-2015, 19 gold
and silver articles were seized from the house of
accused in the presence of CW6 and CW7 as Ex.P24
and subjected the same under PF No.59/2015 which
is marked as Ex.P25. He recorded the statement of
CW6 and CW7. Further, accused took him to
Mannapuram Finance, at Garvebhavi Palya,
Hongasandra and seized the 5 gold ornaments from
CW10 in the presence of CW8 and CW9 by drawing
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P26 and subjected the
11
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
same under PF No.60/2015 which is marked as
Ex.P27 and recorded the statement of CW8 to CW10.
The accused took him to Bhajarangabali Bankers, at
Kaggalipura and seized 2 gold ornaments from CW13
Hariram in the presence of CW11 and 12 by drawing
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P28 and subjected the
same under PF No.65/2015 which is marked as
Ex.P29 and recorded the statement of CW11 and
CW12. CW13 has produced one pawn receipt which
is marked as Ex.P30. On 10-06-2015, he recorded
complainant statement on the identification of
ornaments. Since some of seized gold ornaments is
related to this case, the file has been transferred to
Yeshwanthpur police station. As per the court order
the ornaments shown in Ex.P3 to 5 released to CW1.
viii. CW25 by name Sri B.N.Nataraj, the then
HC of Yeshwanthpura PS examined as PW9 deposed
that on 12-07-2015, SHO has deputed him and
CW26 to trace out the accused Srinivas, accordingly
when they were on patrolling duty at
Singanayakanahalli, he apprehended the accused
and produced him before SHO with report as per
Ex.P13.
ix. CW29 Sri Shivakumar, examined as PW10
and deposed that he was working as Finger Print
Expert in Finger Prints Unit at Bengaluru since 1997.
On 15-05-2015 at 9.00 a.m., the Yeshwanthpur
Police were asked to come to place of crime in respect
12
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
of Crime No.350/2015. He, along with Srinivas i.e.
accused No.2 and Kantaraju, police constable, visited
the said place and inspected and found Accidental
fingerprints at the place. They collected and brought
to the office and with the help of the software
available in the office, the fingerprints found at the
place were examined and the accidental fingerprint
found on the almirah identified as A, matched the left
thumb print of the remanded person Srinivas @
Karate Seena. He has taken a photograph of both the
matching fingerprints and identified the 8 line
features and sent it to the Station House Officer for
further action. He identified the photographs as
Ex.P31 and his signature thereon as Ex.P31(a) and
32.
x. CW30 Sri Venkatesh, the then PSI of
Yeshwanthpura PS examined as PW11 deposed that
on 15-05-2015, he received complaint as per Ex.P1
from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P33 and handed
over the case papers to CW31. He identified his
signatures as Ex.P1(b) and 33(a).
16. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of
law for the purpose of the present case. The essential
ingredients to prove an offence under Section 457 of
IPC prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass
or house breaking by night in order to commit offence
punishable with imprisonment. The essential
13
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
ingredients to constitute the offence of house
breaking at night are:-
1. The accused should have
entered into the property which is
in possession of another.
2. There should be an intention to
commit an offence on part of the
accused.
3. Such property should be any
building / tent/ vessel used for
human dwelling on place for
worship or for custody of
property.
4. Entry into the house should
have been effected by the accused
in any one of the six ways as
defined under Section 454 IPC
wherein a person is said to have
committed house breaking if he
affects his entrance into the
house or any part thereof or affect
his exist in any of the six ways
described in the said section. The
six ways given in the said Section
are as follows:-
1. If he enters or quits through a
passage by himself or by any
abettor to commit house trespass
2. If he enters or quits through
any passage not intended by any14
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016person other than himself or the
abettor for human entrance; or
through any passage to which he
had obtained by scaling or
climbing over any wall or
building.
3. If he enters or quits through
any passage which he or any
abettor has opened which passage
is not intended by the occupier of
the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening
any lock to commit house
trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance by
using criminal force or
committing assault or any by
threating a person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any
passage which he knows to have
been fastened against such
entrance or departure and he had
unfastened the same.
17. Section 380 of IPC prescribes punishment
for theft in a dwelling house. The offence theft is
defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential
ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
380 IPC are as follows:-
15
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable
property.
3. The property shall be taken out
from the possession of any person
without his consent.
4. There should be some moving
of the said property to such
taking.
5. The theft should have been
committed in a dwelling house or
place used for safe custody of
property.
18. The incident occurred in the house of PW1,
when he and her husband were out of Bengaluru.
There is no eye witnesses to the alleged entry of
accused No.1 into the house during late hours of
night.
19. Before assessing the evidence on record,
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
providing infallible or absolute proof. It is hardly
possible. According to Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act the term ‘proved’ takes the meaning that
the Court after considering the matters before it
believes in existence of a fact or considers the
existence of a fact so probable that a prudent man
under the circumstances of the particular case acts
upon the supposition that it (fact) exists. The term
16
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
‘prove’ indicates the degree of certainty to treat a fact
as proved. The prosecution is supposed to produce
such kind of materials on which the court can
reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact
exists. The Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttara Pradesh Vs Krishna Gopal and another
reported in [(1988) 4 SCC 302] has held that proof
beyond reasonable doubt though of a higher
standard, however cannot be of absolute standard.
The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
extracted below:
25. A person has, no doubt, a
profound right not to be convicted
of an offence which is not
established by the evidential
standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Though this standard is a higher standard, there
is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of
probability amounts to `proof’ is an exercise
particular to each case. Referring to the
interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of
one piece of evidence by another a learned author
says:
“The simple multiplication rule
does not apply if the separate
pieces of evidence are dependent.
Two events are dependent when
they tend to occur together, and17
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016the evidence of such events may
also be said to be dependent. In a
criminal case, different pieces of
evidence directed to establishing
that the defend ant did the
prohibited act with the specified
state of mind are generally
dependent. A juror may feel d
oubt whether to credit an alleged
confession, and doubt whether to
inter guilt from the fact that the
defendant fled from justice. But
since it is generally guilty rather
than innocent people who run
away, the two doubts are not to
be multiplied together. The one
piece of evidence may confirm the
other.”
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are
free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot
afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it is must be free from an over-
emotional response. Doubts must be actual and
substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused
person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of
it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a
merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon
reason and common sense. It must grow out of the
evidence in the case. The above proposition was
18
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
reiterated in a later judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in AIR
2003 SC 2978.
20. In a case based on circumstantial evidence,
it is now a established principle that all the links in
the chain of circumstances must be established. But
many are under the impression that every
circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. This is not the requirement. Circumstantial
evidence means a fact on which an inference is to be
founded. Evidence which proves or tends to prove the
factum probandum indirectly by means of certain
inferences or deductions to be drawn from its
existence and their connection with factum probentia
is circumstantial evidence. [Commentary on law of
evidence by Woodroffe & Amir Ali]. If the decision is
based on inferences considering the evidence
provided in connection with a fact constituting a
circumstance, it is enough to provide primary
evidence in regard to that fact. This position is made
clear by the Supreme Court in the case of M. G.
Agarwal Vs State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1963
SC 200 wherein it was held:
There is another point of law
which must be considered before
dealing with the evidence in this
case. The prosecution case19
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016against accused No.1 rests on
circumstantial evidence. The main
charge of conspiracy under
section 120B is sought to be
established by the alleged cond
uct of the conspirators and so far
as accused No.1 is concerned,
that rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. It is a well
established rule in criminal
jurisprudence that circumstantial
evidence can be reasonably made
the basis of an accused person’s
conviction if it is of such a
character that it is wholly
inconsistent with the innocence of
the accused and is consistent only
with his guilt.
If the circumstances proved in the case are
consistent either with the innocence of the accused or
with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. There is no doubt or dispute about
this position. But in applying this principle, it is
necessary to distinguish between facts which may be
called primary or basic on the one hand and inference
of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard
to the proof of basic or primary facts the Court has to
judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and in the
appreciation of evidence in respect of the proof of20
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016these basic or primary facts there is no scope for the
application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The
Court considers the evidence and decides whether
that evidence proves a particular fact or not. When it
is held that a certain fact is proved, the question
arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt
of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this
aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt
would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn
only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the
innocence of the accused and is consistent only with
his guilt. It is in the light of this legal position that
the evidence in the present case has to be
appreciated.
21. It is only at the end the cumulative effect of
the entire evidence brought on record in regard to all
the circumstances must indicate that there is no
scope for doubting the prosecution case for any
reason. In other words analysis of the entire evidence
on all the circumstances must take to a conclusion
that the proof brought on record by the prosecution is
free from doubt.
22. It appears from Ex.P32 that the Assassinate
Commissioner of Police, Finger prints section,
Bangalore city has addressed a letter on 15/05/2015
to the Assistant Commissioner of Police( Crime)
Infantry Road, Bangalore City for comparison of
thumb impression of accused No.1 (having said to
have obtained from scene of occurrence) with the
21
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
admitted thumb impression of accused No.1 having
obtained in crime No.217/2011 under section 399,
402, 457, 380, IPC on the file of Madiwala Police
Station; in crime No.102/2013 under section 399,
402, 457, 380, IPC on the file of Yeshwanthapura
Police Station; Crime No.20/2013 filed under section
399, 402 IPC and in Crime No.201/2014 under
section 454, 457, 380 IPC on the file of Sanjaya Nagar
Police Station and the same was compared with the
Ex.P31. Though PW10 namely Shivakumar along Sri
Srinivas, S. Kantharaj visited the spot in Crime No.
350/2015 on 15/05/2015 and secured the hand-
writing expert however no mahazar was drawn on
15/05/2015. No photograph or videograph was taken
to connect the alleged spot and hence no credence
could be given to the Ex.P31 and Ex.P32-report that
it was of the accused No.1 was secured at the spot.
More so over the admitted thumb impression on the
vakalath is different from the compared thumb
impression as per Ex.P31 and Ex.P32 and the same
is apparent from the bare eyes. The evidence of
CW29/PW10/Sri Shivakumar deposed that he seized
the finger prints of accused No.1 from spot, but no
clinching supporting mahazar was drawn and hence
his evidence cannot be relied upon.
23. The accused No.1 was in the police custody
on 12/07/2015 without formally arresting them, it
can be stated that they were in police custody. What
amounts to custody is made clear by the Hon’ble
22
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
Supreme Court in the case of State of AP Vs Gangula
Satya Murthy reported in [(1997)1 SCC 272] wherein
it was held that
19. The other reasoning
based on Section 236 of the
Evidence Act is also fallacious. I t
is true any confession made to a
police officer is inadmissible
under Section 25 of the Act and
that ban is further stretched
through Section 26 to the
confession made to any other
person also if the confessor was
then in police custody. Such
“custody” need not necessarily be
post-arrest custody. The word
“custody” used in Section 26 is to
be understood in pragmatic
sense. If any accused is within the
ken of surveillance of the police
during which his movements are
restricted then it can be regarded
as custodial surveillance for the
purpose of the Section.
Thus, if he makes any confession during that
period to any person be he not a police officer, such
confession would also be hedged within the banned
contours outlined in Section 26 of the Evidence Act.
23
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
24. Added to which, prosecution has relied upon
Ex.P20 seizure mahazar was drawn on 17/07/2015
in the police station and that he had given to his
sister Mangalamma before two months back but the
signature of accused No.1 was totally different with
admitted signature in the vakalath but witnesses
namely Smt.Mangalamma W/o Ramesh resident of
Srinivasa, Kaggalipura, Bangalore and Sri Ramesh
S/o Puttarama, resident of No. 3, 6th Cross, III Main
Road, Sri Nagar, Bangalore to the Ex.P20 was not
secured to prove its authenticity and free from any
doubt so as to credential value to the Ex.P20 and 21.
Then how IO namely Sri S.Narasimhamurthy/
CW31/PW7 could have seized the two necklaces from
the possession of the sister of accused No.1 Smt.
Mangalamma
25. The evidence produced by the prosecution is
only against the accused No.2 and not against the
accused No.1 and this court cannot give any
evidentiary value attached to the Ex.P15 voluntary
statement of accused No.1 unless the voluntary
statement should prima faciely should appear from
the record is free from any force and coercion.
According to the prosecution, the voluntary statement
of accused No.1 was recorded on 12/07/2015 and
appears from the statement that the jewels given to
his sister Smt. Mangalamma and his brother in law
24
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
was already seized by the R.T.Nagar Police Station
and then on what basis Ex.P20 came into existence
and on what basis, the IO collected the two necklace
from the said Smt. Managalamma and Smt. Ramesh
on 17/07/2017. So it is clear that the Ex.P21 and
Ex.P15 leads to suspicion.
26. The PW1 did not identify the accused No.1
before this court and also denied the statement given
police as per Ex.P6 after identification of accused
No.1.
27. Spot Mahazar witness namely Sri
Sampath/CW2/PW5 deposed that she pleaded
ignorance about the contents of Ex.P2 (spot Mahazar)
and further deposed CW3 was present along with him
at the time of signature to the Ex.P2.
28. seizure witnesses as per Ex.P7 dated
13/07/2015 (identified as per Ex.P6) namely
CW14/PW2/ Sri Rakesh Kumar did not support the
prosecution and denied the statement given before
the police as per Ex.P8 (identified as per Ex.P7)
29. Seizure witnesses as per Ex.P9 dated
07/06/2015 (identified as per Ex.P8) namely
CW5/PW3/ Sri Abubakar did not support the
prosecution and denied the statement given before
the police as per Ex.P10 (identified as per Ex.P8).
25
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
30. Seizure witnesses as per Ex.P11 dated
09/06/2015 (identified as per Ex.P9) namely
CW13/PW4/ Sri Hariram deposed in the cross
examination that “he is seeing the accused No.1 for
the first time through VC” and hence the presence of
accused No.1 during the seizure mahazar dated
09/06/2015 does not arise at all.
31. Sri Rajkumar/CW32/PW6 has released the
order jewels as per order of this court and hence his
evidence does not have much reliance for convicting
the accused No.1.
32. The evidence of CW24/PW8/IO Sri Mahesh
is all related to the accused No.2 and his evidence
does not help the prosecution for conviction of
accused No.1.
33. The evidence of CW25/PW9 Sri B. N. Nataraj
is about the arrest of accused No.1 and his evidence
does not help the prosecution for conviction of
accused No.1. Therefore, this court have no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove
that the accused No.1 have committed the offences
punishable under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt. In the result, this court answer the
above point No.1 and 2 in the negative
34. 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:
26
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not
guilty and acquitted from the
offences punishable under Sec.
457, 380 of IPC.
(ii) Accused 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 CC No.21998/2016
registered against accused No.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 the
10th day of January, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt Jayanthi PW2 : Sri Rakesh Kumar PW3 : Sri Abubakar PW4 : Sri Hariram PW5 : Sri Sampath PW6 : Sri Rajaram.B.T. PW7 : Sri S.Narasimhamurthy PW8 : Sri Mahesh.M. PW9 : Sri B.N.Nataraj PW10 : Sri Shivakumar PW11 : Sri Venkatesh
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3-5 : Photographs
Ex.P6 : ಮಾಲು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ (copy)/
Statement of PW1
Ex.P7 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P8 : Seizure Mahazar dtd 7-6-2015
Ex.P9 : Statement of PW3
Ex.P10 : Seizure Mahazar dtd 9-6-2015
Ex.P11 : Pawn Receipt No.84 (carbon copy)
Ex.P12 : Report of HC 5039
28
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
Ex.P13 : Report of PW9
Ex.P14 : Further voluntary statements of
P15 accused No.2
Ex.P16 : Seizure Mahazar dtd: 14-7-2015
Ex.P17 : PF No.128/2015
Ex.P18 : 2 receipts of Mannapuram
P19 Finance
Ex.P20 : PF No.137/2015
Ex.P21 : Seizure Mahazar dtd: 17-7-2015
Ex.P22 : PF No.58/2015 (copy)
Ex.P23 : Voluntary statement of A1
Ex.P24 : Seizure Mahazar dtd: 08-6-2015
(copy)
Ex.P25 : PF No.59/2015 (copy)
Ex.P26 : Seizure Mahazar dtd: 08-6-2015
(copy)
Ex.P27 : PF No.60/2015 (copy)
Ex.P28 : Seizure Mahazar dtd: 9-6-2015
(copy)
Ex.P29 : PF No.65/2015 (copy)
Ex.P30 : Pawn Receipt No.8499
Ex.P31 : Finger Print report
Ex.P32 : Finger Print Record Slip
Ex.P33 : FIR
Material Objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution: Nil
29
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIl
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
30
KABC030179622016 CC No.7039/2016
10.1.2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 is found not
guilty and acquitted from the
offences punishable under Sec.
457, 380 of IPC.
(ii) Accused 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
CC No.21998/2016 registered
against accused No.2.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
31