Bangalore District Court
Achukattu Police Station vs Persons Are on 29 June, 2022
C.C.No.6547/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this 29th day of June 2022
PRESENT: SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.S1. No. of the case C.C.No.6547/2015 Date of commission of the 17.10.2014 offernce (As per F.I.R.) Channammanakere
3. Name of the complainant Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru City.
1. G.N.Rajashekar, S/o Late G.N.Nanjappa, Aged about 75 years,
2. Dinesh G.R., S/o Rajashekar
4. Name of the accused Aged about 45 years, Both are R/at No.5/15, 3rd Cross, Vinayaka Nagar, Banashankari 1st Stage, Bengaluru - 560 050.
Sections 323, 325, 341, 354,
5. The offence complained of 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Accused persons are
7. Final order acquitted
8. Date of order 29.06.2022 2 C.C.No.65 120 The Police Sub-Inspector of Channammanake Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Rer Police Report against the above named accused persons alleging that the have committed the offences punishable under sections 323 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 The Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.10.2014 at 3.15 pm, the accused persons who are the residents of the neighbouring house of CW-1 residing at No.5/15, 3rd Cross, Vinayaka Nagara, Srinivasa Nagara, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennamanakere Achukattu Police Station were sanitary work done in their getting house, CW-1 asked to remove the dirty the workers articles from near his No.1 in house, accused furtherance of the common abused CW-1 intention of in filthy language, accused No.2 along with came out accused No.2, from the No.1 wrongly restrained house voluntarily caused on his face from grievous hurt to CW-1; accused his right fist, CW-1 by voluntarily caused punching simple hurt C.C.No.6547/2015 his chin and chest with his hands;
to CW-1 by beating on
to pacify, came to beat him with pipe and
when CW-2 came
life threat to CW-2 stating that he will take away his life
gave
with sword. Thereby, the accused persons have
by chopping
committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 3255, 34 of the Indian Penal 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section Code.
3.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was at Channamanakere registered in Crime No.337/2014 No.2 Achukattu Police Station. During investigation, accused on 04.11.2014.
was arrested and produced before this Court He was enlarged on bail on 11.11.2014. On completion of the Channammanakere investigation, the Police Sub-Inspector of Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the Code.
process was issued to the accused persons. They have C.C.No.6547/2015 accused No. 1 was enlara.
appeared before this Court and Police Report and other other on bail. The copies of the are furnished to the accused persons prosecution papers under section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused persons have committed offences triable by this court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to them in Kannada language. They have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW9, the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to and Ex.P13 Material Object MO1.
During cross-examination of
Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 PW7,
are marked on behalf of the
accused
persons. After completion of the
prosecution evidences, for
the purpose of
enabling the accused
persons personally to
explain any circumstances appearing in the
evidences of the
prosecution against them, examined the accused persons
5
C.c.No.6547/2015
ader Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have submitted that they have no detense evidence. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Negative, Point No.2 As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1- In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons, out of 13 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet by the investigation officer, the prosecution has C.c.No.6547/2015 evidences of eight witnesses as 1, Pu PW1. PW2, produced the oral P.Parimala Prashanth who is the PW1 is Smt. PW4 to PW9.
and injured witness. PW2 K
in this case
first informant
witness and the eye
witness of the
Prashanth is the injured
witness who came
incident. PW4 M. Mukunda is the hearsay Srinivasa and PW8 M.Vinod Kumar after the incident. PW5 are the Seizure Mahazar witnesses of MO1 and the documents Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. PW9 G. Vijayalakshmi is the Spot Mahazar witness. PW6 Jayaramreddy is the witness who produced accused No.2 before the Investigation Officer.
PW7 P.S.Kumaraswamy is the Investigation Officer of this case. The prosecution has also produced the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and Material Object MO1. Ex.P1 is the First Information given by PW1, Ex.P8 is its copy, Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3 is the Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P4 is Dental Report, Ex.P5 is Treatment Summary, Ex.P6 is Wound Certificate, Ex.P7 is Report of PW6, Ex.P9 is First Information Report, Ex.P10 is Wound Certificate and Ex.P13 is the Witness Statement of CW12. MO1 is Teeth.
C.C.No.6547/2015 The arguments of the learned Senior Asst. Public
8. are that from the oral evidences of PW1 to PW9. Prosecutor the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused persons all reasonable doubts.
beyond Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused persons 9 that there is delay in lodging the first information has argued which is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution First Information witnesses; as per the First Information, not mention about the loss of Report and Ex.P10, there are improvement after lodging the first teeth by PW1. It is only an to the information and CW1 take the chance of the situation sustained by PW1 as present case. To prove the injuries evidences the prosecution has not produced the oral alleged, the of the prosecution.
of CW8 and CW9. This is fatal to case several contradictions between the oral evidences of There are creates reasonable doubt the prosecution witnesses which commission of the alleged offence by the with regard to the several improvements which are accused persons. There are also fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the 8 C.C.No.6547 /201s oi the accused pers.
the guilt persons
prosecution has not proved
doubts.
reasonable
beyond all
arguments and
the allegations
of the above
10. In the light
and documentary
Police Report, I read the oral made in the Ex.P1 is the First Ex.P1 evidences by the prosecution.
produced
basis for set the law
Information given by PW1 which is the
PW7. Ex.P1 is dated 18. 10.2014 given by
into motion by
PW1 on the said date at 1.00 p.m. to PW7.
PW7 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 18.10.2014 at 1.00 p.m., he received Ex.P1 given by PW1, registered the Criminal Case and forwarded the First Information Report as per Ex.P9.
Ex.P8 is the copy of Ex.P.1. PW1 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 18.10.2014, she gave First Information to the Police as per Ex.P1.
11. The contents of Ex.P1 that are on 17.01.2014, accused No.1 was getting Sanitary work of his house done and thereafter, there was dirty in front of her house from which bad smell was coming; at 3.15 p.m., she went to his house and told the plumber workers to clean the dirty; at that time, ) C.C.No.6547/2015 cused No.1 came out of his house by holding PVC pipe in his hand and abusing her in filthy languages; along with him, accused No.2 also came;
abused in filthy languages and hold the hand of PW2.
Thereafter, accused No.1 beaten her face with his right fist as a result of which, blood came from her mouth. Again, accused No.1 beaten her chin and chest with his hand and dragged by holding her. Thereafter, CW2 escaped from accused No.2 and came to help her. At that time, accused No.1 went to beat CW2 with PVC pipe which was holding by him. When, CW2 came to escape, he beaten on the left ear. By that time, the neighbouring people came and pacify the clash. At that time, accused No.1 gave life threat telling accused No.2 to bring Sword and he will chop them. Immediately, he and CW2 came and gave complainant obtained treatment at Ring Road and thereafter, they Hospital.
examination-in-chief has deposed about the
12. PW1 in her But, there are the contents of Ex.P1.
incident corroborating contradictions in the said oral improvements and some C.C.No.5547 215 ner exanination-in-ru TiDenDE PWi. SDe depOSEd n
-chiei ner TwO TEeth were lost. Sh She as a esut oi he ncadent.
ber ezemination-in-chief that after the
hes eposed n
ncer she obrained r e a m e n t at Ring Road Hospital;: on
ire o nident the Poice have not received the
Compieand on 18.10.2014. she gave Complaint to the 13PW2n his ezamination-in-chief has also deposed about idenr ooroboraing The contents of Ex.P1. He has also eposei in his ezamination-in-chief that as a result of the ident wO TESTh of PW1 were lost. Further, he has deposed is Ezamination-in-chiei that after the incident, they went D Poiice Sraion: Poice sent them to Hospital; after their em iom he Hospital, they gave Complaint to the Police;
bur ihe Poice hare not received the
Complaint on that day;
hereaftr, PW1 went to
Chowdeshwari Dental Clinic and
obiained reatment ior teeth and on the next day again they
went to he Poice Station and
gave Complaint.
11
C.C.No.6547/2015
As per the case of the prosecution, Cw3 is the eye
14. witness of the incident. But, the prosecution has not produced her oral evidences before the Court. In spite of issuance of the Processes, her presence could not be secured.
15. As per the case of the prosecution, PW4 is the witness who came after the incident. He has given his statement on 17.10.2014 at about 3.25 before the Investigation Officer p.m., he came to the house of PW1; at that time, many people there from the mouth of PW1; gathered there; bleeding was PVC pippe accused No. 1 was standing by holding near to her, house along with accused went inside the with his hand and Station took PWi to Police and thereafter, PW2 No.2 abusing incident, his With regard to the alleged to give Complaint.
the
Officer is the
Investigation
before the
statement given
to him.
information given by PW1
examination-in-chief that on in his PW4 has deposed
16. went to the house of PW1; at at 3 3.15 p.m., he 17.10.2014, back to their persons were going accused the that time, mouth bleeding from the for after beating PW1; blood house 12 C.C.No.6547 /2015 were shaking; n e a r ear of Pw2 W2, there two teeth of PW1 and of Sanitary Pipe water he t.
was injury and about cleaning incident was taken place.
Mahazar conducted at the place of
17. About the Spot in their incident as per Ex.P2, PW7 and PW9 have deposed examination-in-chief and PW1 has deposed in her cross examination conducted by the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor after she is considered as hostile witness.
With regard to seizer of MO1 and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, PW1, PW5, PW7 and PW8 have deposed in their examination-in-chief. PW6 in his examination-in-chief has deposed about the arrest of accused No.2 and PW7 has deposed about the witness statements of recoded by him during investigation and collection of the Wound Certificate of PW1 as per Ex.P10.
18. The above oral, documentary evidences and Material Object produced by the Prosecution are testified through Cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused persons.
13C.c.No.6547/2015
19. The history of lnjuries sustained by PW1 mentioned before Ring Road Hospital is the first document after the incident. As per contents of Ex.P10, history of the injury is mentioned as due to assault on 17.10.2014 at 3.00 p.m.;
PW1 was brought to the said hospital on the said date at 3.15 p.m. and she was discharged from the hospital at 3.30 p.m. after treating as outpatient. Though, these sequences are supporting the case of the Prosecution and corroborating with the oral evidences of PW1, Pw2 and PW4, it appears that at Ring Road Hospital, the history of assault done by whom is mentioned in Ex.P10 are only that not entered. The injuries lower lip of PW1. In Ex.P10 there is minimal abrasions over PW1 at the time of no mention about shaking of the teeth of As per contents of her examination at Ring Road Hospital.
The with PW1 was simple in nature.
Ex.P10, the injury found
that on 17.10.2014, PW1
contents of Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 reveal
Chowdeshwari Dental Clinic and she
obtained treatment at
and bleeding from
that she was suffering severe pain
reported
contents of
in mobile. As per the
lower lip, front two teeth are
treated with first aid to
initially she was
the said documents,
C.FFAT 1
thereafter her
two teeth from
rom loweE fr
le.
and
stop bleeding
In Ex. P4 to Ex.P6, no where, the
the hiss
removed.
jaw were
accused persons
are mentioned. It
It shows
the
ofassault by
Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and M01, the inis
that till seizure of ury
silent.
sustained to two teeth of PW1 are
From the above documentary evidences prima-facie, the
20
nature of the injury sustained by PW1 as a result of the incident in question is not proved by the prosecution. As per Ex.P10, the nature of injury sustained by PW1 was simple in nature. In Ex.P6, the nature of the injury ustained by PW1 is mentioned as grievous in nature. The Prosecution has not examined the authors of Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P10 before the Court to prove its contents. Mere production of the documents are not sufficient to prove the issuance of the said documents and its contents. In a case like this, the prosecution shall produce the opinion of the Medical Expert not only about the nature of the injury sustained by PW1, but also the evidence with regard to the fact that M01 are the teeth of PW1 and it was removed from her mouth. In fact, as 15 C.C.No.6547/2015 ont nces of Prosecution, MO1 was given by PW1 to per t h e e v i d e n c +he Investigation Officer at Police Station on 01.11.2014.
Therefore, this is one of the circumstances under which, the Prosecution has not proved that MO1 were lost by PW1 as a result of the injuries sustained in the alleged incident and the injuries sustained by PW1 as a result of the incident in question are grievous in nature.
21. It is true that the First Information and the First Information Report are not encyclopedias. However, Ex.P1 was given and the Crime was registered as per Ex.P9 on the next day of the alleged incident. If really any such injuries caused to the teeth of PW1, it would have been brought to thhe notice of the Investigation agency at the earliest point of time.
It appears that there is delay in lodging the First Information.
PW1 and PW2 have deposed in their examination-in-chief that on the date of incident itself, they went to the Police Station and gave Complaint; it was not received by the Police and on the next day, it was received by the Police. The said allegation of PW1 and PW2 are not supporting with any other 16 C.C.No.6547 /2015, 18.10.2014. It is not the nce of dated materials. Ex.P1 is and PW2 that it was not prepared as per per their PW1 There is no mention about the previous complaint statement.
the date of incident itself. In Ex.P9, it is
given by PW1 on
mentioned that the reason for delay in lodging the First Information is not informed. PW7 has also not deposed that on 17.10.2014, PW1 and PW2 came to the Police Station to give First Information with regard to the alleged incident. On the other hand, PW7 has deposed in his cross-examination that on 17.10.2014, complaint was not given and no reason has been assigned in the complaint about the delay caused.
These circumstances are
leading to the chancees for
chances
improvement in the
circumstances narrated in the First
Information.
22. PW7 in his
cross-examination has admitted that onn
07.06.2013, accused No.1 gave complaint against PW2
alleging that he gave life threat to accused No.1. He the identifiedd documents and same are marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
Ex.D1 is the copy of the
Police
Acknowledgement dated
17
C.C.No.6547/2015
0706.2013 and Ex.D2 is copy of the
Complaint dated
06.05.2013. It
appears from the said documents that accused No.1 gave complaint against PW2 alleging that Pw2 while constructing the building next to the house of accused No.1 without any setback, as such it is affecting the ventilation, PW2 came to the house and threatened accused No.1. PW1 admitted in her cross-examination, before they construct the house, accused persons were residing in theirr house putting up construction; when they were constructing the house, the accused persons gave objections to BBMP; AEE of BBMP gave order against them as they have not constructed the house as per BBMP Rules; BBMP demolished certain portion of their house and Lokayukta gave Report to BBMP about the construction of the house by them. Pw2 has also admitted in her cross-examination that he gave statement at Police Station that he will not trouble the accused persons.
23. PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that BBMP demolished the violated portion of his house as he has not 18 C.C.No.6547 /2013 as per BBMP Rules; before the+ constructed the house tice complaint aqo was given to him; accused persons gave against before the Police. PW4 h-
him and he gave Indemnity Bond has examination-in-chief that when PW2 was deposed in his the accused persons gave constructing the house in his site, trouble to him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of incident, he was not present and he has not given statement before the Police what he stated before this Court in his examination-in-chief.
24. If the above facts admitted by PW1 to Pw3 and PW7 are considered in its totality along with the witness statement of PW3 recorded by the Investigation Officer, it appears that there are dispute between the accused persons and PW1 and PW2 since the date of commencement of the construction off the house by PW1 and PW2. PW4 is not an eyewitness of the incident. His oral evidences with regard to the overt act on PW1 and PW2 cannot be believed. It appears from his oral evidences that he has only saw accused No.1 holding PVC pipe in his hand, bleeding from the mouth of PW1 and the 19 C.C.No.6547/2015 persons went inside their house abusing. ccused a c c u s e d the house of the accused persons and PW1 and Admittedly, with the other houses. PW4 has stated PW2 is surrounded before the Investigation Officer that when he came people cross-examination gathered there. PW2 has deposed in his witnessed the incident. Such that the other people have also the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and being the circumstances, rely. The reasons for not believe the PW4 are not sufficient to PW4 that they are oral evidences of PW1, PW2 and are the family and they have grudge over members of the same incidents took regard to the admitted accused persons with constructed the house in place when PW1 and PW2 have the oral and documentary their sites. For the above reasons, the evidences and also Material Object produced by with reasonable doubts to rely as proof of Prosecution are to the commission of the alleged evidence with regard them.
the accused persons as charged against
offences by
the prosecution has not proved
Under these circumstances, accused persons for the offences punishable the guilt of the 506 and 509 R/w Section under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 20 c.c.No.6547 /2015 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I answer Point No 1 in the Negative.
25. POINT No.2- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against them. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section
248(1) of Cr.P.C, the
accused persons are
hereby acquitted for
the offences
punishable under Sections
323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 509 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will stands canceled after appeal period.
Since MO1 is worthless, it is ordered 21 C.C.No.6547/2015 to destroy after appeal period.
(Tvped by theStenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then court on 29.06.2022) pronounced by me in the open (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution:
Parimala Prashanth, PW1 Prashanth PW2 PW3 PW4 Mukunda, PW5 Srinivasa, PW6 Jayaram Reddy, Kumaraswamy S.P., PW7 Vinod Kumar, PW8 PW9 Vijayalakshmi.
Prosecution:-
Documents marked on behalf of Ex.P1 First Information, Ex.P1(a) Signature, Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P2(a) to(c) Signatures, 22 c.c.No.6547 /2015, Seizer Mahazar, Ex.P3 Ex.P3(a) to (c) Signatures, Dental Report, Ex.P4 Ex.P4(a) Signature, Treatment Summary, Ex.P5 Ex.P5(a) Signature, Wound Certificate, Ex.P6 Ex.P6(a) Signature, Ex.P7 Report, Ex.P7(a) Signature, Ex.P8 Copy of First Information, Ex.P8(a) Signature, Ex.P9 Copy of First Information Report, Ex.P9(a) Signature, Ex.P10 Wound Certificate, Ex.P10(a) Signature, Ex.P13 Statement, Ex.P13(a) Signature. Material objects marked on behalf of MO1 Prosecution Teeth.
Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1
True Copy of
Acknowledgement,
VEDAMOO s s
ari4
11 AAd Chaef Metpogacit.au M aga