IN 

THE COURT OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.
AT VIJAYAPURA
    Present : Smt.Amruta 
B.A.,LL.M.
        I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC.,
          VIJAYAPURA 
C.C.No.545/2009 
th
            Dated : On this the 19
      day of January ­ 2021
Complainant : The State through Gandhi Chowk PS
Vijayapura   
(By Assistant Public Prosecutor)
                 V/s
Accused : A1. Javeed S/o Farukhammad Pathan, 
(Split­up)
  A2. Imran S/o Basirahammad Pathan, 
Age: 25 years, R/o: Sakaf Roza, 
Vijayapura
  A3. Parag S/o Purushotam Takkar 
(Split­up)

  (By Sri R.S.Garadimani Advocate)

1. Date of commission of offence :  03.06.2007, 04.06.2007
   and 17.09.2007  
2. Date of report of offence :  06.01.2009
3. Date of appearance of accused A­2:  27.02.2016
4. Name of the Informant :  Karunakaran  
5. Date of recording evidence :  11.09.2017
6. Date of closing evidence :  09.12.2020
7. Offence complained of :  U/Sec 379, 465, 468,
   471, 420 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge :  Accused found not guilty

         (Smt.Amruta)  
                        I Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC,
          Vijayapura
 2 C.C.No.545/2009

         ­:: JUDGMENT ::­

The   Police   Inspector   of   D.C.I.B.   Vijayapura   has

submitted final report against the accused No.1 to 3 for the

offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420 and

379 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of prosecution case is as follows :­  

That,  03.06.2007, 04.06.2007 and on 17.09.2007 the

accused No.2 along with split­up accused No.1 and 3 have

committed   theft   of   vehicles   in   Maharastra   State   and

changed   the   number   plates   of   the   stolen   vehicles   by

duplicate number plates.   Further, the accused persons by

putting   the   duplicate   number   plates   to   the   stolen   vehicle

have forged the R.C. book and prepared duplicate R.C.book

dishonestly and fraudulently sold the said vehicles knowing

fully   well   that,   the   vehicles   are   stolen   vehicles   and   the

documents are forged one,  sold the said vehicles to CW­4 to

6 with  an intention to cheat them. The persons who have

lost   their   vehicles   have   filed   application   before   the   TATA

General   Insurance   Company   and   claimed   compensation

with   regard   to   their   stolen   vehicles.   Thereafter,   the

informant/CW­1/Karunakaran,   the   manager   of   the   said

 3 C.C.No.545/2009

insurance company has lodged first information statement

praying to take legal action against the culprits.   

3. Based on the first information statement given by

the informant, the Investigating Officer has registered a case

against unknown persons in Cr.No.05/2009 for the offences

punishable   under   Section   465,   468,   471   and   420   of   IPC.

After completion of the investigation, the investigation officer

has submitted final report against the accused No.1 to 3 for

the above said offences.

4. On receipt of  final report  cognizance was taken for

the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420

and   379   of   IPC  and   NBW   was   issued   to   the   accused

persons.   That, on 27.02.2016 the accused No.2 appeared

before this Court and he has been enlarged on bail.  But, in

spite issuance of many NBWs, the accused No.1 and 3 did

not   appear   before   this   Court.   Hence,   on   27.09.2016,   the

case against accused No.1 and 3 is ordered to be split­up

and case is proceeded only against accused No.2.   

5.   The   prosecution   papers   were   furnished   to   the

accused No.2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing the prosecution and counsel for accused No.2

charges   were   framed   against   the   accused   No.2   for   the

 4 C.C.No.545/2009

offences punishable under Section 379, 465, 468, 471, 420

of IPC.  The accused No.2 denied the charges and claimed to

be   tried.   Hence,   the   case   was   posted   for   prosecution

evidence to establish the guilt of the accused No.2. 

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of

the accused No.2, has examined seven witnesses as P.W.1

to 7, got marked four documents as per Ex. P­1 to P­4.    The

statement of accused No.2 as required under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., has been recorded, accused No.2 has denied all the

incriminating   evidence   appearing   against   him   in   the

prosecution evidence. 

7. Heard the learned APP for prosecution and counsel
for the accused No.2.  

8. On going through the facts and materials  produced

by   the   prosecution,   the   following   points   arise   for   my

consideration:

1. Whether   the   prosecution   proves   beyond   all

reasonable doubt that, on 03.06.2007, 04.06.2007
and 17.09.2007 the accused No.2 along with split
up   accused   No.1   and   3   has   committed   theft   of
vehicles   as   shown   in   column   No.11   of   the   final
report   in   Maharastra   State   and   changed   the
vehicles   number   plates   by   putting   duplicate
number plates on them and thereby the accused
 5 C.C.No.545/2009

No.2 has committed an offence punishable under
Section 379 of IPC?
2. Whether   the   prosecution   proves   beyond   all
reasonable   doubt   that,   on   the   afore   mentioned
date time and place,  the accused No.2 along with
split   up   accused   No.1   and   3   has  changed   the
number   of   plates   of   the   vehicles   by   putting
duplicate number plates on them, forged the R.C.
book   and   prepared   duplicate   R.C.   book
dishonestly and fraudulently sold the said vehicles
to CW­4 to 6 with an intention to cheat them and
thereby   the   accused   No.2   has   committed   an
offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
3. Whether   the   prosecution   proves   beyond   all
reasonable   doubt   that,   on   the   afore   mentioned
date time and place,  the accused No.2 along with
split   up   accused   No.1   and   3   have   forged  the
number   of   plates   of   the   vehicles   by   putting
duplicate   number   plates   on   the   vehicles   and
forged   the   R.C.books   pertaining   to   the   stolen
vehicles  and   thereby   the   accused   No.2   has
committed   an   offence   punishable   under   Section
465 of IPC?
4. Whether   the   prosecution   proves   beyond   all
reasonable   doubt   that,   on   the   afore   mentioned
date time and place,  the accused No.2 along with
split   up   accused   No.1   and   3   have   forged  the
number of plates and the R.C. book pertaining to
the stolen vehicles  and used the said documents
 6 C.C.No.545/2009

and number plates as genuine documents with an
intention of cheating CW­4 to 6 and  thereby the
accused   No.2   has   committed   an   offence
punishable under Section 468 of IPC?
5. Whether   the   prosecution   proves   beyond   all
reasonable   doubt   that,   on   the   afore   mentioned
date time and place,  the accused No.2 along with
split up accused No.1 and 3 have committed theft
of  the   vehicles   in  Maharastra  State   as  shown  in
column   No.11   of   final   report,   changed   their
number plates by putting duplicate number plates
on them and forged the R.C.Books and used the
said forged documents as genuine documents with
an intention to cheat CW­4 to 6 and thereby the
accused   No.2   has   committed   an   offence
punishable under Section 471 of IPC?
6. What order?

9. My findings on the above points are :
   Point No.1 to 5  : In the Negative
     Point No.6   : As per final order for the following:
     R E A S O N S

10. Point No.1 to 5: All these points are connected  to

each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of the facts

and appreciation of the evidence, all these points are taken

up together for common consideration.   

11. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of

the accused No.2, has examined CW­3/Mahammad Ali and
 7 C.C.No.545/2009

Cw­2/Baban the pancha witnesses to the seizure mahazars

as   PW­1   and   2   respectively.   CW­5/Iktar   Ahammad,

CW­6/Abdul   Tikotikar   who   are   alleged   to   have   purchased

the stolen vehicles from accused persons are examined as

PW­6 and 3 respectively.   CW­7/Muneer Ahammad Karjagi

and   CW­8/Abdul   Ajij   the   circumstantial   independent

witnesses   who   are   alleged   to   have   purchased   the   stolen

vehicles are examined as PW­5 and 4 respectively.  CW­13/

Gurupadappa, the head constable who was on duty to trace

out the accused persons is examined as PW­7. In support of

oral   evidence,   the   prosecution   has   got   marked   04

documents as per Ex.P­1 to P­4. Ex.P­1 and P­2 are seizure

mahazars   with   respect   to   seizure   alleged   stolen   vehicles.

Ex.P­3 is the statement of PW­5, Ex.P­4 is report given by

PW­7 stating that the accused persons were not found.   

12. PW­1 and 2 are panchas to the seizure mahazars,

which are marked as Ex.P­1 and P­2  have turned hostile to

the prosecution case.   The learned APP has treated PWs.1

and   2   as   hostile   witnesses   and   cross   examined   them   by

suggesting that on 11.01.2009 from 11:15 am to 12:00 pm

in   front   of   the   house   of   CW­4,   the   police   have   seized   the

Tavera   vehicle   bearing   No.BJ­12/J­4520   and   in   front   of

 8 C.C.No.545/2009

Urdu school Tavera vehicle bearing No. MH­02/AV­3069 in

their   presence.     Further,   on   12.01.2009   from   1:00   pm   to

2:00   pm,   in   Gandhi   Chowk   police   station   the   police   have

seized TATA Indica car bearing No.BJ­06/ CB­7722 in their

presence.   But,   PW­1   and   2   have   denied   the   entire

suggestions put­forth to them during cross examination by

the prosecution.   Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed

to prove the seizure mahazars through the evidence of PW­1

and 2.

13. On appreciation of entire prosecution evidence it

reveals that, none of the witnesses have supported the case

of   the   prosecution   in   order   to   prove   the   offence   alleged

against accused No.2. Though the witnesses CW­ 5 and 6

who are examined as PW­6 and 3 have turned hostile to the

prosecution case, the prosecution has utterly failed to treat

them   as   hostile   witnesses   and   subject   them   for   cross

examination to elicit the truth of the case.  The prosecution

has  not even  made  efforts  to  get their statements  marked

when   they   have   turned   hostile   to   the   prosecution   case.

Further,   the   investigation   officer   in   the   present   case   has

also   not   stepped   into   the   witness   box   to   give   evidence   in

support of the prosecution case. Hence, on all these grounds
 9 C.C.No.545/2009

the   benefit   of   doubt   which   the   prosecution   has   to   prove

beyond   all   reasonable   doubt   tilts   in   favour   of   accused

persons.   The prosecution has utterly failed to bring home

the ingredients of Section 379, 420, 465, 468 and Section

471 of IPC.   Hence, in the absence of any evidence on the

part of the prosecution, the accused persons are entitled for

acquittal.   Therefore,   the   point   No.1   to   5   are   held   in   the

negative. 

14. POINT No.6 :­ In view of discussion held on above
points, this Court proceed to pass the following:

    ­:: ORDER ::­
Acting under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offences
punishable under Section 379, 465, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC. 
The   bail   bond   and   surety   bond   of   the
accused No.2 shall stands canceled. 
Keep   the   entire   case   properties   if   any   and
the   case   records   along   with   split­up   case
registered against accused No.1 and 3.
(Dictated   to   the   stenographer,   directly   on   computer,   transcribed   by
him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court
on this the 19th day of January ­ 2021)

               (Smt.Amruta)
            I Addl.Civil Judge & J.M.F.C,
                                                        Vijayapura
 10 C.C.No.545/2009

        ANNEXURE

1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution. :­

PW­1 :  Mahammad Ali S/o Gudusab 
PW­2 :  Baban S/o Hajisab Gyasmaddi
PW­3 :  Abdul S/o Hameed 
PW­4 :  Abdul Ajeej S/o Mainuddin 
PW­5 :  Munirahammad S/o Aminuddin
PW­6 :  Iktarahammada S/o Mahammadsab
PW­7 :  Gurupadappa S/o Parappa   
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:­
Ex.P­1 & 2 :  Seizure panchanamas
Ex.P­1a & 2a: Signatures of PW­1
Ex.P­1b&2b : Signatures of pw­2  
Ex.P­3 :   Statement of PW­5
Ex.P­4 :  Report of PW­7
Ex.P­4a :  Signature of PW­7
3. Material objects identified on behalf of prosecution:­
    ­­NIL­­                                      
4.  List of witnesses and documents on Defense side :­  
    ­­NIL­­                                      

      (Smt.Amruta)
            I Addl.Civil Judge & J.M.F.C,
                                                Vijayapura