IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.339 OF 2010 C/w.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.175 OF 2010 In Criminal Appeal No.339/2010 :
BETWEEN:
Manjunatha @ Manja @ Duck Manja @ Kumar, S/o late Ramakrishna Aged about 27 years, R/at No.19, 4th Cross, 1st Main, Byrasandra, Jayanagara, Bengaluru. .. Appellant ( BY Sri B.C.Rajanna, Advocate ) AND:
State by Banasawadi Police Station, Bengaluru. .. Respondent ( By Sri Divakar Maddur, HCGP ) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order and judgment dated 19/20.01.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.56/2007, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. The appellant/accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC.
In Criminal Appeal No.175/2010 :
BETWEEN:
Balaji, S/o Panduranga Aged about 28 years, No.428, Priyanka Silver Refinery, 7th & 8th Cross Junction, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. .. Appellant ( BY Sri Hanumanthappa H., Advocate ) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru. .. Respondent ( By Sri Divakar Maddur, HCGP ) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 19/20.01.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.56/2007, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC. The appellant/accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `500/-, in case the accused failed to pay fine amount, further he has to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC.
These Criminal Appeals having been heard and reserved for judgment on 9.1.2019, this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City, FTC-II, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court’), in his judgment dated 19.1.2010, passed in S.C.No.56/2007, convicted the appellant (accused No.1) in Criminal Appeal No.339/2010, for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’), and it also convicted the appellant (accused No.2) in Criminal Appeal No.175/2010, for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and sentenced accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and accused No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of `500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
2. Since both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment passed in S.C.No.56/2007 by the trial Court, both these appeals are taken up together for their disposal.
3. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court is that on 1.9.2006, at 3.00 a.m., in the night, accused No.1 entered the house of CW-1 Sri P.N.Venkatesh and putting said CW-1 and his wife – CW-2 Smt.Prathiba, under threat at the point of pistol and dagger held by him, robbed them of gold ornaments worth `7 lakhs, cell phones and a cash of `4,000/-. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 assisted accused No.1 in disposing off those robbed valuables knowing fully well that they were the stolen properties and thereby, accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and accused No.2, committed an offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC.
4. The charges were framed against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and against accused No.2, for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution got examined nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and through them, got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-12(m) and material objects at MO-1 to MO-24. From the accused side, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 19.01.2010, convicted the accused for the offences for which they were charged with and sentenced them accordingly.
5. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeals, impugned judgment and the lower Court records.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
7. Among the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 – V.Baladandayodha, has stated that scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-1 was drawn in his presence by the complainant-police.
8. PW-2 – the complainant P.N.Venkatesh, has stated that on 1.9.2006, at about 3.00 a.m., his relative Parthiban, who was residing in his house at Kalyananagara, woke him up. When he opened the door, he saw a masked man (veiling person), along with CW-3 Parthiban, standing outside, holding a gun in his hand. Both the hands of Parthiban were tied on his back. The wife of this witness also came outside. The masked man (veiling person), asking them to stand at a side, demanded and took mangalasutra from his wife and also got opened the cupboard through her and took out all the ornaments that were kept in the said cupboard and got them put into a bag and ran away from the place.
The witness has also stated that the accused has robbed eight gold chains, fifteen gold bangles, twenty pairs of ear studs, fifteen pairs pearls, cash of about `2,000/- and a cell phone. The ornaments were weighing in total about 516 grams, including diamond ornament. The witness has further stated that, thereafter, he untied Parthiban and contacted the police, who visited the spot. He gave them a complaint in writing describing how the accused was looking like. The witness has identified and got marked the complaint at Ex.P-2.
The witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination, wherein he adhered to his original version.
9. PW-3 – Smt.Prathiba, the wife of PW-2, has also given her evidence in line with that of PW-2. She has also stated that on the alleged date of incident, in the night at about 3.00 a.m., Parthiban who was sleeping in the downstairs, shouted that a robber had come. When these people saw, the said robber was wearing a monkey cap on his head, his eyes were visible and he was also wearing a jacket. By putting these people under threat, he robbed them of fifteen gold bangles, six golden chains, twenty pairs of ear studs, two cell phones, pearl chains and threatening them of shooting them in case they inform the police, he left the place.
The witness has further stated that her husband lodged a complaint with the police. One and half months thereafter, the police have summoned them to Banasawadi Police Station, from there, to City Market Police Station, where they were shown the accused who was arrested. Looking at the personality and eyes and eyebrows of that person, these people identified him as the one who committed robbery in their house. The police also shown them gun, knife, monkey cap and bag used by the robber at the time of the incident. The witness has identified those articles at MO-1, MO-2 and MO-21.
PW-3 further stated in her evidence that on the next day, the police had summoned them to their station and shown them accused No.2 and also gave them few ornaments said to have been recovered during the investigation. Those ornaments, the witness has identified from MO-3 to MO-20. The witness has identified the accused in the Court.
She was also subjected to a detailed cross- examination.
10. PW-4 – Parthiban Ponnuswamy, in his evidence has stated that on the date of incident, at about 3.00 a.m., when he was sleeping at the downstairs, a person broke open the door and entered inside and woke him up. The said intruder showing him a dagger and a pistol which he was holding in his hands, inquired about the inmates in the house and took `2,000/- which was in the cupboard and tying his hands on the back, brought him to the first floor and through him, got the door opened by PW-2. Thereafter, putting PW-2 - the brother-in-law of PW-4, as well PW-3 – the wife of PW-2, also under threat by showing them gun and dagger, he robbed their house with ornaments, two sets of mobile phones and cash. The witness has identified accused No.1 in the Court.
He was also subjected to a detailed cross- examination.
11. PW-5 – Rajanna, a Supervisor in a Hotel has stated that on 3.10.2006, in the noon, the police had brought accused No.1 to their hotel and showing a knife, two caps and a gun, which were at the Receptionist’s table, stating that they belong to the accused, took his signature to a panchanama. The witness has identified those three articles at MO-1, MO-2 and MO-21 as the one seized on the said date. He also stated that an iron rod was also seized, which he has identified as Ex.P-23.
He was also subjected to a detailed cross- examination.
12. PW-6 – K.G.Honnesh, a Head Constable, has stated that, he along with other staff were deputed for tracing the accused. Accordingly, based on the information given by the informants, they went to Hosakote, where in Dr.Rajakumar Road, in front of Srinidhi Hotel, they saw a suspected person. After chasing him, they caught him and produced before the Police Sub-Inspector. The witness has identified the said person as accused No.1 in the Court.
13. PW-7 – Abdul Khayum, has stated that as per the direction of his Police Inspector, on 27.10.2006, along with his officer, he went to Central Jail and submitted a request letter, took the custody of both the accused and produced them before the learned Magistrate and got them into police custody. The witness has identified both the accused in the Court.
14. PW-8 - N.C.Shankaraiah, the Police Inspector of the respondent-Police Station, has stated that on 1.9.2006, at about 4.30 a.m., complainant – N.P.Venkatesh appeared before him in the station and lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P-2. He prepared FIR as per Ex.P-5 and sent it to the Court. Thereafter, immediately he visited the place of offence and summoned the dog squad and finger print experts and also drew spot mahazar in the presence of panchas. He also recorded the statements of few persons, including PWs.3 and 4, appointed his people for tracing the accused. On 3.10.2006, after receiving information from the City Market Police about the accused – Manjunatha being in their custody, he went there and subjected him into inquiry. He took police custody of accused No.1 by the order of the Court and at the same time, also took the police custody of accused No.2. On 25.10.2006, he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1, wherein he stated that he would show the shop to which they have sold the robbed articles. Accused No.2 gave his voluntary statement on the similar lines. On 31.10.2006, accused No.1 gave his further voluntary statement, stating that he would show the scene of occurrence of offence and also the person who has purchased the robbed articles. Accused No.2 also gave a further voluntary statement on the similar lines.
The witness has further stated that on 2.11.2006, accused took him and the panchas to a shop called Priyanka Silver Refinery and the accused entering in the said shop, brought out a gold chain, weighing 56 grams, two golden bangles, weighing 32 grams and produced before them. By drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex.P-10, he seized those articles.
The witness has also stated that on 3.11.2006, the accused took them to Someshwara Refinery shop at Ganigarapet and asked one Sri Popatlal, who was in the said shop, to produce the ornaments sold to him by them. Sri Popotlal admitting the transaction, produced some ornaments, which he (this witness) seized by drawing panchanama in the presence of panchas. Thereafter, the accused took him to Dashrath Refineries, at Nagarthpet and asked one Sri Dashrath, who was in the shop, to produce the ornaments sold to him. The said Dasharath also produced the ornaments, which he (this witness) seized by drawing a seizure panchanama. The witness has identified the panachanama at Ex.P-11.
PW-8 further stated that on 13.11.2006, he received a pistol, woolen monkey cap, pair of hand gloves and one dagger, transferred to his station by City Market Police, which articles, the witness has identified at MO-1, MO-2, MO-21 and MO-23 and the handbag at MO-24. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused in the Court.
The denial suggestions made to him from the accused side in his cross-examination were not admitted as true by him.
15. PW-9 – Dasharatha, has stated that in the year 2006, he was running a shop of melting and polishing work of silver and gold items. Accused No.2 was a person from his native place and known to him since about ten to twelve years. He does not know accused No.1. On 3.11.2006, about three to four police officials, along with accused No.2, came to his shop, another person was also with the police, who might be accused No.1. At the inquiry by the police, he telling them about he purchasing the gold from accused No.2, returned ten or eleven golden bangles, one pair of ear studd, one or two gold chain and two bracelets to them. The police drew a mahazar as per Ex.P-11 and took those articles, which articles, the witness has identified at MO-3 to MO-19.
This witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination.
16. In the light of the above, it was the argument of learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 that no test identification parade was conducted by the police, as such, the identity of the accused is doubtful. He also submitted that the recovery of MOs.1, 2, 21 and 23 is also unbelievable. It has not come in the evidence of PW-8 as to how robbed articles from accused No.1 has been made over or passed to accused No.2. He also submitted that PW-8 being the Investigating Officer has turned hostile from the beginning and was subjected to cross-examination from the prosecution. As such, his entire evidence is not believable.
17. Learned counsel for accused No.2 in his argument submitted that no case is made out as against accused No.2. PW-9 has stated that he does not know reading and writing in Kannada and does not speak about the weights of MO-3 to MO-19, as such, the very recovery of the articles from MO-3 to MO-19 at the alleged instance of accused No.2 is doubtful.
18. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his very brief arguments submitted that accused No.1 is identified by PWs.2 and 3 in the police station based on the thick eyebrows he was possessing. Not conducting of test identification parade is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. He also submitted that evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 are trustworthy. The recovery of MOs.3 to 19 at the instance of accused No.2 clearly establishes the guilt against the accused.
19. The occurrence of alleged incident of robbery on 1.9.2006, at about 3.00 a.m. in the house of PW-2 Sri P.N.Venkatesh is not in dispute. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 in that regard has remained undisputed and undenied in the cross-examination of those witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses that said act of robbery was committed by a single person who was well built, nearly 6 feet height, with thick eyebrow and was wearing monkey cap and a jacket, exposing his eyes, is also not specifically denied or disputed.
Further, since the incident has taken place inside the house, it is not the case from the accused side that there was no electricity facility, as such, the inmates of the house could not able to see the features of the robber. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 about the articles and valuables robbed by the robber has also remained undisputed. Further, PW-2 lodging a police complaint with the respondent-police about the incident is also not in dispute. Thus, the admitted fact remains that on 1.9.2006, at about 3.00 a.m., a robber entered the house of PW-2 and committed the robbery of valuable articles, including a cash of `4,000/-, golden mangalya chain, six gold chains, including a chain with pearls and gems, twenty pairs of ear studs and two cell phones.
20. In the light of the above noticed undisputed fact, the next question would be whether the prosecution has proved that it was accused No.1 alone who has committed the alleged offence of robbery. Admittedly, both accused are strangers to PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who have witnessed the incident. They could only give the description of the robber as a tall person, well built, with thick eyebrow, who was wearing monkey cap and jacket. Admittedly, the alleged identity of the accused by PW-2 and PW-3 was only in the police station, that too, after the police are said to have shown accused No.1 to them. Admittedly, no test identification parade has been conducted in the case, while primarily the argument of the learned counsel for accused No.1 was that in the absence of test identification parade, the identity of accused No.1 has failed to be not established.
21. Per contra, the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader is that non-conducting of test identification parade is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, when, in fact, the prosecution could able to establish the identity of the accused by other cogent evidences and more particularly, from the recovery made at the instance of the accused.
22. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he has not identified the accused in the police station and has not given any statement to the police in that regard. With that specific point, treating the witness as hostile, even though the prosecution has cross- examined him, still, it could not get any support from the witness regarding the identity of accused No.1 by him in the police station. However, PW-4 has identified accused No.1 in the Court as the person who has committed robbery in their house. Thus, the evidence of PW-4 regarding the identity of accused No.1 as the person committing robbery is not safe to believe and act upon.
23. PW-2 and PW-3, the victims of the incident, though have identified accused No.1 in the police station, but, as stated by them, the basis of their identifying the said accused as the culprit is only the thick eyebrow said to be possessed by the accused. As such, in the absence of any test identification parade, mere identifying a person only based upon his alleged thick eyebrow which cannot be a rare or unique identity of an individual, is also not safe to solely rely upon and to hold accused No.1 himself was the culprit. However, the said identification by PW-2 and pW-3 can be considered if there are any other corroborative evidence to link accused No.1 to the alleged incident which would establish that it was accused No.1 alone who has committed the alleged act of robbery. The only other such corroborative evidence which the prosecution has relied upon in the instant case is the recovery of the robbed ornaments said to have been made at the instance of the accused.
24. According to the prosecution, the recovery has been made in the instant case based upon alleged voluntary statements said to have been given by the accused. The evidence of PW-5 the panch witness, PW-8 - the investigating Officer and of PW-9 in that regard are required to be analysed.
PW-5, as already observed above, is a Supervisor of a Hotel, but, he does not say in which Hotel he was the Supervisor. However, he has only stated that on 3.10.2006, the police had brought accused No.1 to his Hotel and showing this witness a knife, cap and gun, which were on the Receptionist’s table, stated that they belong to accused No.1 and took his signature to panchanama at Ex.P-4. This witness has identified those article at MOs.1, 2 and 21 and further stated that a rod at MO-23 was also seized on the said day. Even according to this witness, he does not know from where those articles came on the Receptionist’s table in his Hotel. Whether they were produced at the instance of the accused or whether those articles were already in their Hotel, is not forthcoming in his evidence. Even according to this witness, the relationship between alleged articles and accused No.1 was stated to him by the police, but, not by the accused. As such, the evidence of this witness, except to show that MOs.1, 2, 21 and 23 at one point of time were there on the Receptionist’s table, could in no way establish any nexus between those articles and the accused.
25. The evidence of PW-9, who has stated his occupation as a goldsmith and was running a shop of melting and polishing work of silver and gold items, shows that accused No.2 was known to him since ten to twelve years as he hails from his native. This witness has categorically stated that on 3.11.2006, the police had brought accused No.2 to his shop and identifying the said accused who had sold the gold articles to him, he (this witness) returned ten or eleven gold bangles and one pair of ear stud, one or two gold chains and two bracelets, in the presence of police. He has also stated that in his presence, accused No.2 told to the police about the particulars of the items which the accused has sold to this witness. Apart from giving these details, the witness has also identified those gold ornaments at MO-3 to MO-19, which were recovered by the police from him by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P-11. However, he has not specifically stated that accused No.1 was also accompanying them and that accused No.1 and himself could identify each other. He has also not stated about any nexus between accused No.1 and the alleged gold articles at MO-3 to MO-19.
In the cross-examination of this witness, though it was elicited that this witness was not a Pawn Broker, but, it could not be able to be shaken his evidence that accused No.2 had not sold those articles or pledged with him. Though he has stated at one stage in his cross- examination that he could not say the particulars of the person who pledged the gold items with him, but, he has volunteered to say that accused No.2 being from his native, he has advanced the amount to him. He denied a suggestion that accused No.2 had never pledged any item and that he was adducing falsely to take revenge against accused No.2.
In this manner, the witness, apart from withstanding searching cross-examination from the accused No.2 side, has further made it clear that those articles at MO-3 to MO-19 reached him only through accused No.2. He also denied a suggestion that accused No.2 had not sold any items to him. Interestingly, in his cross-examination from the accused side, a suggestion was made to this witness that after his signature (in the panchanama at Ex.P-11), the police left his shop, which suggestion, the witness admitted as true. By making the said suggestion, it was clearly established from the side of accused No.2 that a panchanama as per Ex.P-11 was drawn in the shop of this witness.
26. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, in his evidence about the recovery of MO-1 to MO-24, has only stated that both the accused gave before him their voluntary statement and further voluntary statement, according to which, on 2.11.2006, the accused took him and panchas to Priyanka Silver Refinary, from where, accused No.2, entering his shop, produced a golden mangalya chain, weighing 56 grams and two golden bangles, weighing 32 grams, which he seized by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P-10. Admittedly, the panchas to the said panchanama have not been examined by the prosecution.
Similarly, PW-8 also stated that on 3.11.2006, the accused took him to Someshwar Refinary at Ganigarpet and one Sri Popatlal, who was there in the said shop, produced a golden necklace, two chains, ear stud and another chain with pendent, which also he seized by drawing a panchanama. The witness has not stated under which particular panchanama, he seized those articles. However, the witness has stated about accused taking him to the shop of PW-9, Dasharath at Nagaratpet and getting several other golden ornaments, including golden and emerald bangles, golden and pearl chains, which articles he seized by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex.P-11. Admittedly, no panchas for the said panchanama are examined by the prosecution. However, as already observed, PW-9 himself has spoken about the police drawing panchanama in his presence and in his shop and also about he returning those golden articles at MO-3 to MO-19.
27. With respect to seizure of pistol (gun), monkey cap, handbag and dagger, PW-8 has only stated that those articles which are at MOs.1, 2, 21 and 23, were transferred to him from City Market Police Station. Thus, there is no cogent evidence to believe that the articles at MOs.1, 2, 21 and 23 were seized at the instance of either of the accused and from the Hotel where at, PW-5 was said to be the Supervisor. Thus, the recovery of MOs.1, 2, 21 and 23, including another MO at No.24, does not stand to be proved. On the other hand, recovery of golden articles at MO-3 to MO-19 have been proved to be based on the voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P-9 and the said recovery has been clearly corroborated by the evidence of none else than PW-9, who is said to be person retaining those articles at the instance of accused No.2. The loser of those articles in the robbery i.e., PW-2 and PW-3 have identified all those golden articles from MO-3 to Mo-19 as the very articles robbed from them in the incident. Among those articles, apart from the ornaments seized from the shop of PW-9 at the instance of accused No.2, the articles produced by accused No.2 by himself from his shop – M/s.Priyanka Silver Refinary, are also included. Thus, the recovery of MO-3 to MO-19 at the instance of accused No.2 has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Even though from same, PW-2 and PW-3, have also identified MO-1, MO-2 and MO-21, but, admittedly those articles does not belong to them and that they claim to have seen those articles only at the time of incident, therefore, without any corroboration as to on what basis they could able to identify the weapons like gun, dagger and monkey cap, which were not their articles, cannot be believed that they were the one used in the commission of crime. It is also for the reason that, as already observed above, their seizure from the Receptionist’s table of the Hotel also has not been established. Therefore, the nexus of those articles with accused No.1 cannot be believed. On the other hand, the ornaments at MO-3 and MO-19 being the articles owned and possessed and were being used by PW-2 and PW-3, they identifying those articles as belonging to them can be believed.
Further the evidence of PW-9 has established beyond reasonable doubt the nexus between those articles and accused No.2 in the process of those articles reaching the hands of PW-9. Thus, irrespective of the fact that the relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.2 could not be established and also of the fact that none of the witnesses, more particularly, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, have stated about the involvement of accused No.2 in the act of robbery, but, the proven fact shows that golden articles at MO-3 to MO-19 belonging to PW-2 and PW-3, were robbed in the incident on the night of 1.9.2006, at 3.00 a.m. and the very same articles were recovered by the police at the instance of accused No.2. Therefore, it is established that the robbed articles were concealed or dealt with by accused No.2.
28. Therefore, even though the prosecution could not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused No.1 alone who had committed the alleged robbery, but, it has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.2 could able to secure or procure the robbed articles at MO-3 to MO-19 and sold or pledged it with PW-9. Therefore, for failure to prove the identity of accused No.1, the benefit of doubt goes to accused No.1. However, the guilt against accused No.2 punishable under Section 414 of Cr.P.C. has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
29. The trial Court without noticing the short of clear proof to believe the guilt of the accused, has by observing that the recovery of MO-3 to MO-19 having proved and established, jumped to a conclusion that the same would prove the guilt of accused No.1 also, which was for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. As such, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence pronounced against accused No.1 deserves to be set aside. However, the judgment of conviction passed against accused No.2 sustains. The sentence ordered against accused No.2 for the proven guilt since being proportionate to the criminality of the offence committed by him, the same does not warrant any modification at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Criminal Appeal No.339/2010 filed by accused No.1 – Manjunatha @ Manja, is allowed.
Criminal Appeal No.175/2010 filed by accused No.2 – Balaji, is dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bengaluru City, FTC-II, dated 19.01.2010, in S.C.No.56/2007, is set aside confining to accused No.1 – Manjunatha @ Manja, and accused No.1 – Manjunatha @ Manja is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. The bail bond executed by accused No.1 – Manjunatha @ Manja, stands cancelled after the period of appeal and if no appeal is preferred in the matter. However, the very same judgment holding accused No.2 – Balaji, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and the sentence ordered against him in the matter by the trial Court, is confirmed.
The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith, to enable it to proceed further in the matter for issuance of warrant of conviction against accused No.2 if necessary, and proceed in accordance with law.
An entire copy of this judgment also be delivered to accused No.2, immediately free of cost.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/