JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court dated 28.02.2017 in S.C.No.1111/2012 on the file of LII Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2012 at about 08.45 p.m. one Smt.H.N.Indiramma PW-1 was proceeding on 1st cross, Sneha Colony, Chikkalasandra, Bengaluru, at that time accused No.1 came near her on the pretext of asking address and tried to rob the Mangalya Chain. At that time, the complainant held the chain tightly, the chain was broken and the accused Nos.1 & 2 taking that broken piece, fled that place on the motorbike. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Nos.4 & 5 abetted accused Nos.1 & 2 to commit the offence and they are the habitual receivers of the stolen property and accordingly they have received the robbed article from accused Nos.1 & 2 knowing fully well that it is a stolen property.

3. PW-1 lodged the complaint at Ex.P1 and based on the said information, FIR was registered in Crime No.51/2012 by the Subramanya Pura Police Station. During investigation, the Police arrested the accused and based on their voluntary statement, incriminating materials were recovered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 109 & 413 of IPC.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and produced 74 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-74. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 [Accused No.3 Anwar has died, hence, proceedings abated before the Sessions Court]. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard arguments of Sri.B.N.Jagadish, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri.C.B.Abdul Sab, learned counsel for respondents/accused.

6. Sri.B.N.Jagadish, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the Sessions Court committed grave error in appreciating the evidence available on record resulting in acquittal of the accused. It is submitted that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-1, the complainant, who narrated the incidence of robbery of her Mangalya Chain by accused Nos.1 & 2. She has also affixed signature on Ex-P2, the spot mahazar, which was drawn in her presence and identified the accused persons, who had snatched the gold chain, as well as the broken chain, in the photograph at Ex.P-3. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that the defence failed to disprove PW-1's evidence during cross-examination. The evidence of PW-1 is consistent with regard to identification of the accused, identification of recovered article and identification of place of occurrence, as indicated in Ex-P2.

7. It is submitted that the Sessions Court committed error in appreciating the evidence of PW-2, who is a panch witness to Ex.P-5 - mahazar, drawn while recovering the Yamaha bike and car from the residence of accused No.1. The said witness has supported the case of prosecution by identifying the mahazar at Ex.P-2 and his signature. It is further submitted that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-5, who is the panch witness to Ex.P-6 - the recovery mahazar; the said witness has clearly stated that he along with another person went to police station and the police requested them to act as panch witnesses and took him to Tamil Nadu and it was informed that accused Nos.1 & 2 had committed the crime. He further says that accused Nos.1 & 2 went to one person and requested him to return back the ornament, which they had given to him and accordingly he returned the article, which was seized by Police by drawing the mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P-6 and his signature is