STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SRIDHAR; MAHESH @ SARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment & Order of acquittal dated 15th March 2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore in S.C. No.502/2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that PWs.3 and 4 were friends and classmates; they used to attend "BASE TUITION" classes during the relevant point of time; after attending "BASE TUITION" classes at 8.45 p.m. on 30.9.2008, they were coming back to their homes; when they reached the scooter stand wherein they had parked the scooter, seven unknown persons came there and started quarrelling with them (PWs.3 and 4) unnecessarily and without any reason; one of the accused got two autorickshaws and they (PWs.3 and 4) were taken in those autorickshaws by seven unknown persons; the two autorickshaws wherein the accused and the victim were seated, were taken near Gavigangadhareshwara temple, K.G. Nagara wherein the accused robbed valuables such as gold ornaments, mobile phone, cash of Rs.100/- etc., from PWs.3 and 4; However PWs.3 and 4 were released by those seven unknown persons thereafter; PWs.3 and 4 came to their houses and narrated about the incident to their respective parents during the night of 30.9.2008. PW.1 is father of PW.3. He told his son PW.3 to take rest on that day and to lodge the complaint on the next day. However on the next day morning, PWs.3 and 4 went to their college for regular studies and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged as per Ex.P3 by PW.3 with the help of his father (PW.1) before the PSI of Basavanagudi Police Station (PW.8), which came to be registered in Crime No.196/2008 for the offence under section 392 of IPC. Case was registered against seven unknown persons. During the investigation of the said crime, some of the accused were arrested in another crime i.e., Crime No.246/2008 in Kengeri Police Station which was registered for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. In the said crime, the voluntary statement of Accused No.2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer of that Crime (i.e., Crime No.246/2008). Based on that, certain gold ornaments and mobile phone were recovered. The Investigating Officer having come to know that MOs.1 to 3 are the subject matter of robbery committed by the accused and having come to know that Crime No.196/2008 is registered in Basavanagudi Police Station against the accused, he transmitted MOs.1 to 3 to Basavanagudi Police Station for further proceedings. Ultimately, the charge sheet came to be filed in Crime No.196/2008 by PW.12, the Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station for the offence under Section 395 of IPC against seven persons including the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got marked 8 Exhibits and 3 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As mentioned supra, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the evidence of each of the witnesses in brief. PW.1 is father of PW.3 and he is the hearsay witness inasmuch as his deposition is based on the information gathered from his son PW.1. Therefore his evidence is of no use for deciding this matter. PW.2 is a pawn broker. PW.2 has deposed that one boy came to his shop and pledged the articles and he has not identified any of the accused as to the boy who had come to his shop for the purpose of pledging. He was treated hostile by the Public Prosecutor. PWs.3 and 4 are college going boys. They were about 16 to 18 years of age during the relevant point of time. PW.3 is the complainant. He has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P3 before the Police. They depose that they did not know any of the accused earlier and they have seen the accused for the first time at the time of the incident. PW.5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Kengeri Police Station, who apprehended the accused in Crime No.246/2008 registered for the offences under sections 399 and 402 of IPC. In the said crime, the voluntary statement was recorded and MOs.1 to 3 were recovered at the instance of Accused No.2. PW.6 is the Police Constable who apprehended one of the accused. PW.7 is the recovery panch. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station who received the complaint Ex.P3 and sent the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P4. PW.9 is the Inspector of Police of Kengeri Police Station. He conducted part of the investigation. PW.10 is the witness for Ex.P6 seizure Mahazar. But he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.11 is the Inspector of Police. He is the Sub- Inspector of Police attached to Kengeri Police Station during the relevant point of time and he conducted investigation in Crime No.246/2008. PW.12 is another Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station during the relevant point of time. He conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet.