SHABARI GIRISH S/O. SHEKARAPPA, DINESH AND KARADI S/O. SHIDDALINGAPPA AND CHETAN, S/O. SHEKARAPPA Vs. THE DEBASPET PS NELAMANGALA TALUK REP BY ITS STATE PP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein are arraigned as Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in C.C. No. 143/2009 on the file of the JMFC, Nelamangala (Crime No. 202/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 396 and 201 IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the Prosecution, CW -1 Khaja the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. TN -23/D -8727 lodged a complaint between 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. on 27 -11 -2008, based on which, the case was registered and investigation was taken up. According to the allegations, on the evening of 26 -11 -2008, the complainant left SUNVIC factory near Tumkur along with load of 15 Tonnes of Iron rods to deliver the same near Dabaspet Industrial Area. Along with him, a Watchman by name Roldana Kaph of the said factory also accompanied him. According to him, he reached NH -4 near Kyathasandra at 10.30 p.m. and at that place one of the wheels of the vehicle got punctured. Therefore, he proceeded slowly and he reached near Dabaspet at about 12 in the midnight. As it was odd hour, thinking that no one will be available to unload the iron rods, he parked the lorry beneath the Fly -Over near Dabaspet and he was sleeping inside the cabin along with the Security Guard. At about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. about 4 to 5 persons entered the lorry cabin and he suddenly woke up. They were found covered their faces with clothes and they threw chilly powder into his eyes and also assaulted him with a Spanner and took the lorry from that place towards Shivagange road and on the way he was thrown into a Tank. Thereafter, in the morning, he came to the Government: Hospital at Dabaspet. According to the Police, his statement was recorded in the Dabaspet and the Police appears to have arrested these petitioners on 2B -11 -2008. During the Investigation, the Police stated to have recovered the spanner said to have been used for assaulting C.W.1 at the instance of Accused No. 2 (first petitioner).

(3.) THE case of the Prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Even according to the statement of C.W.1 made at the earliest point of time in the form of complaint, the culprits who entered the lorry had covered their faces with clothes. Therefore, prima facie it is clear that C.W.1 was not in a position to clearly identify the culprits. No doubt, according to the Prosecution, during the investigation, C.W.1 made further statement whereunder he stated to have identified these petitioners as some of the culprite. Having regard to the statement made by him at the earliest point of time, further statement required to be tested during the trial. The two circumstances to link these petitioners with the alleged crime as noticed above are the recovery of spanner and the iron roads. Recovery of the spanner was stated to be from the side of the road and the iron rods stated to have been recovered from near the house of C.W.26 -Sunil. The said house is stated to be a Farm House. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this stage there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged against them. Admittedly, the petitioners are permanent residents of Dabaspet, Nelamanagala Taluk. There is no material on record that these petitioners are involved in any other offences of similar nature. The investigation is already over and charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, the question of petitioners interfering with the investigation doss not arise. The apprehension of the prosecution could be allayed by imposing conditions.