Bangalore District Court
Sheshadripuram Ps vs A1- Vinodraj @ Vinoda on 5 April, 2024
1
SC.No.612/2021
KABC010115102021
Presented on : 08-06-2021
Registered on : 09-06-2021
Decided on : 05-04-2024
Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R ,
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 5 th day of April, 2024
S.C.No.612/2021
COMPLAINANT/S:- STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Sheshadripura Police station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED:- 1. VINODRAJ @ VINODA,
s/o late Raju,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.20, 1st Main Road,
Palace Guttahalli, Bengaluru.
[Accused No.1]
2. YASHWATHAGOWDA @ KENCHA,
s/o Bettaiah,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.29, 2nd Cross, Anjaneya Block,
2
SC.No.612/2021
Link Road, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru. [Accused No.2]
(A1 & 2 by Sri. KKM., Advocate)
Date of Commencement of 04.05.2020
offences
Date of report of offences 05.05.2020
Name of complainant Smt.Manjula
Date of recording of evidence 20.10.2023
Date of closing of evidence 07.03.2023
Offence complained of U/s.341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506
r/w Section 34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge Acquitted
*****
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by Police Inspector, Sheshadripuram police station against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case.-
The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2020 at about 10.45 pm., the accused persons were playing adjacent to the residence of the complainant and on account of nuisance caused by the accused persons, the complainant's son requested the accused persons not to do so, the accused persons abused the complainant's son and accused No.1 has stabbed on the abdomen of the complainant's son with knife with the intention of killing him and causing grievous injury. Later, the 3 SC.No.612/2021 complainant took his son Pramod to Blue Bliss hospital and admitted him for treatment. Alleging the samethe complainant has lodged the complaint. The police after receiving the complaint have registered a case in Crime No.38/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The police after completion of the investigation have submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.20379/2020 before the XXXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by splitting the case against accused No.3 in CC.No.4583/2021 as he could not be secured as the offences are triable by the court of Sessions. The trial court has committed the said case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn the said case has been made over to this court in SC.No.612/2021 for disposal. This court after securing the presence of accused No.1 and 2, charges were framed and read over to the accused persons and the accused persons having not pleaded guilty of the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried, hence the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution to prove their case have examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. CW1 is examined as PW1, CW2 is examined as PW2, CW3 is examined as PW3, CW4 is examined as PW4, CW5 is examined as PW5, CW6 is examined as PW6 and CW7 is examined as PW7, CW8 is examined as PW8, CW10 is examined as PW9 and CW11 is examined as PW10. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the injured, PW3 is the eye witness to the said incident, PW4 to PW7 are the seizure mahazar witness, PW8 is the seizure mahazar witness and also eye witness to the incident, PW9 and PW10 is the eye witness to the 4 SC.No.612/2021 incident. PW1 to PW10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In spite of issuance of proclamation against CW9, the police have not taken the proclamation issued against CW9 and have not published the proclamation issued against CW9, hence the evidence of CW9 is dropped. The other witnesses examination has been dropped as no purpose would be served in examining them as PW1 to PW10 had turned hostile to the case of the prosecution as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 and 2, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed.
5. Heard the arguments. The points that arise for my consideration.-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that that on 04.05.2020 at about 10.45 pm., the accused persons were playing adjacent to the residence of the complainant and on account of nuisance caused by the accused persons, the complainant's son requested the accused persons not to do so, for that reason the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 picked up with the complainant's son and with an intention to kill the complainant's son, have assaulted him and with the knowledge that by their act, cause the death of the complainant's son, assaulted him with stone and made an attempt to murder PW2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding 5 SC.No.612/2021 accused No.3 in furtherance of their common intention have assaulted the complainant's son with stone and caused hurt thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 in furtherance of their common intention restrained the complainant's son and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 by forming an unlawful assembly, and caused criminal force to CW2 with an intention to provoke the accused No.3 to kill CW2 and thereby committed offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 352 r/w Section 34 IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 in furtherance of their common intention abused the complainant's son in the filthy language and insulted him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 in prosecution of their common object, 6 SC.No.612/2021 threatened PW2 and also put him life threat and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
7. What order?
6. My findings on the above said points are as under.-
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- In the Negative
Point No.3:- In the Negative
Point No.4:- In the Negative
Point No.5:- In the Negative
Point No.6:- In the Negative
Point No.7:- As per the final order
for the following
REASONS
7. Points No.1 to 6: - Since these points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take these points together for common consideration.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2020 at about 10.45 pm., the accused persons were playing adjacent to the residence of the complainant and on account of nuisance caused by the accused persons, the complainant's son requested the accused persons not to do so, the accused persons abused the complainant's son and accused No.1 has stabbed on the abdomen of the complainant's son with knife with the intention of killing him and causing grievous injury. Later, the complainant took his son Pramod to Blue Bliss hospital and admitted him for treatment. Alleging the samethe complainant has lodged the complaint. The police after receiving the complaint have registered a 7 SC.No.612/2021 case in Crime No.38/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
9. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.20379/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The trial court having taken cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused No.1 and 2, has committed the said case to Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and in turn the said case has been made over to this court in SC.No.612/2021 for disposal. This court after securing the presence of the accused No.1 and 2 charge were framed and read over to the accused persons and the accused persons having not pleaded guilty, hence the trial was conducted.
10. The prosecution in support of their case have examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. CW1 is examined as PW1, CW2 is examined as PW2, CW3 is examined as PW3, CW4 is examined as PW4, CW5 is examined as PW5, CW6 is examined as PW6 and CW7 is examined as PW7, CW8 is examined as PW8, CW10 is examined as PW9 and CW11 is examined as PW10. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the injured, PW3 is the eye witness to the said incident, PW4 to PW7 are the seizure mahazar witness, PW8 is the seizure mahazar witness and also eye witness to the incident, PW9 and PW10 is the eye witness to the incident. PW1 to PW10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In spite of issuance of proclamation against CW9, the police have not taken the proclamation issued against CW9 and have not published the proclamation issued against CW9, hence the 8 SC.No.612/2021 evidence of CW9 is dropped.
11. CW1- Manjula is examined as PW1 wherein PW1 has deposed that she does not have any information about this case and she does not know who has assaulted Pramod and she is seeing the accused in the court for the first time. PW1 has identified her signature in the complaint and the said complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and her signature as Ex.P1(a) and she is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P1 and she has signed in Ex.P1 at the police station and the police have not conducted any spot panchanama on her behalf and the police have not seized any articles in her presence PW1 has identified her signature in the said spot panchanama and the said spot panchanama is marked as Ex.P2 and her signature as Ex.P2(a) and she is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P2 and she has signed in Ex.P2 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW1 wherein PW1 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW1 has denied the suggestion that her son CW2 has gone to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused CW2 in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW1 has denied the suggestion that CW2 called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained CW2 and took a knife and stabbed CW2 severely on the left side of his stomach. PW1 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, the accused 9 SC.No.612/2021 No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW3 with hands and escaped from there and he has given the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW1 has denied the suggestion that on 06.05.2020, the spot panchanama was conducted in front of vacant place, near drainage bridge, Link Road as shown by her as per Ex.P2 between 10.30 to 11.15 pm., and also seized the stone which alleged to have been used for the offence. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the accused who is present before the court had tried to kill CW2 and he is deposing falsely to compromise with the accused.
12. CW2- Pramod is examined as PW2 wherein PW2 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he does not know who has assaulted him and he is seeing the accused in the court for the first time and he has not given any statement before the police and he cannot identify the knife which used to assault him. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW2 wherein PW2 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has gone to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused him in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained him and took a knife and stabbed him severely on the left side of his stomach. PW2 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted 10 SC.No.612/2021 CW3 with hands and escaped from there and he has given the statement. PW2 has denied the suggestion that the accused who are present before the court tried to ill him and in this regard he has given statement on 25.05.2020. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P3. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P3 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
13. CW3- Vinod is examined as PW3 wherein PW3 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he does not know who has assaulted him and he does not know who has assaulted CW2 and he is seeing the accused in the court for the first time and he has not given any statement before the police and he cannot identify the knife which used to assault on CW2. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross- examined PW3 wherein PW3 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW3 has denied the suggestion that his son CW2 has gone to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused CW2 in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained him and took a knife and stabbed him severely on the left side of his stomach. PW3 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, 11 SC.No.612/2021 the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW3 with hands and escaped from there and he has given the statement. PW3 has denied the suggestion that the accused who are present before the court tried to ill him and in this regard he has given statement on 06.05.2020. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P4. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P4 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
14. CW4- Ashok is examine as PW4 wherein PW4 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police. PW4 has identified his signature in the spot panchanama and the said spot panchanama is already marked as Ex.P2 and his signature as Ex.P2(b) and he is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P.2 and he has signed in Ex.P2 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW4 wherein PW4 has denied the suggestion that on 06.05.2020, the panchanama was conducted in front of vacant place, near drainage bridge, Link Road as shown by him as per Ex.P2 between 10.30 to 11.15 am., and also seized the stone which alleged to have been used for the act. PW4 has denied the suggestion that the accused who is present before the court had tried to kill CW2 and he is deposing falsely to compromise with the accused and he has given statement in this regard on 06.05.2020. PW4 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P5. PW4 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has 12 SC.No.612/2021 given a statement before the police as per Ex.P5 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
15. CW5 -Naveen is examined as PW5 wherein PW5 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police. PW5 has identified his signature in the spot panchanama and the said spot panchanama is already marked as Ex.P2 and his signature as Ex.P2(c) and he is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P2 and he has signed in Ex.P2 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW5 wherein PW5 has denied the suggestion that on 06.05.2020, the panchanama was conducted in front of vacant place, near drainage bridge, Link Road as shown by him as per Ex.P2 between 10.30 to 11.15 am., and also seized the stone which alleged to have been used for the act. PW5 has denied the suggestion that the accused who is present before the court had tried to kill CW2 and he is deposing falsely to compromise with the accused and he has given statement in this regard on 06.05.2020. PW5 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P6. PW5 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P6 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
16. CW6 -Ganesh is examined as PW6 wherein PW6 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police. PW6 has identified his signature in the amanath panchanama and the said amanath panchanama is marked as Ex.P7 and his signature as Ex.P7(a) and he 13 SC.No.612/2021 is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P7 and he has signed in Ex.P7 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW6 wherein PW6 has denied the suggestion that on 07.05.2020, he was called to the police station and shown accused No.1 and 2 and later accused No.1- Vinod said before the police that he would show the knife which is used in the crime, accordingly, the accused produced a knife which alleged to have been used in the crime at the police station, which was seized from 11.30 to 12.15 pm., as per Ex.P7 and he has given statement in this regard on 07.05.2020. PW6 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P8. PW6 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P8 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
17. CW7 -Venkobarao is examined as PW7 wherein PW7 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police. PW7 has identified his signature in the amanath panchanama and the said amanath panchanama is marked as Ex.P7 and his signature as Ex.P7(b) and he is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P7 and he has signed in Ex.P7 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW7 wherein PW7 has denied the suggestion that on 07.05.2020, he was called to the police station and shown accused No.1 and 2 and later accused No.1- Vinod said before the police that he would show the knife which is used in the crime, accordingly, the accused produced a knife which 14 SC.No.612/2021 alleged to have been used in the crime at the police station, which was seized from 11.30 to 12.15 pm., as per Ex.P7 and he has given statement in this regard on 07.05.2020. PW7 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P9. PW7 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P9 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
18. CW8 -Vishnu is examined as PW8 wherein PW8 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police he has not seen any incident and the police have not seized anything in his presence. PW8 has identified his signature in the amanath panchanama and the said amanath panchanama is marked as Ex.P10 and his signature as Ex.P10(a) and he is not aware of the contents written in Ex.P10 and he has signed in Ex.P10 at the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross- examined PW8 wherein PW8 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW8 has denied the suggestion that CW2 went to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused CW2 in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW8 has denied the suggestion that he called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained him and took a knife and 15 SC.No.612/2021 stabbed CW2 severely on the left side of his stomach. PW8 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW3 with hands and escaped from there and he has given the statement. PW8 has denied the suggestion that on 10.05.2020, CW3 produced the clothes of injured CW2, a bloodstained blue night pant and a bloodstained light blue half-sleeved T-shirt, which were seized by the police between 4.00 and 5.00 pm., as per Ex.P10 and he has given a statement in this regard on 06.05.2020 and 10.05.2020. PW8 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police a per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. PW8 has denied the suggestion that he has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 even though he is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested him.
19. CW10 -Vasantha is examined as PW9 wherein PW9 has deposed that she does not have any information about this case and she has not seen any incident and she has not given any statement before the police and she is seeing the accused for the first time. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW9 wherein PW9 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW9 has denied the suggestion that CW2 went to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused CW2 in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW9 has denied the suggestion that he called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused 16 SC.No.612/2021 No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained him and took a knife and stabbed CW2 severely on the left side of his stomach. PW9 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW3 with hands and escaped from there and she has given the statement in this regard on 06.05.2020. PW9 has denied the suggestion that she has given statement before the police a per Ex.P13. PW9 has denied the suggestion that she has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P13 even though she is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested her.
20. CW11 -Padmavathi is examined as PW10 wherein PW10 has deposed that she does not have any information about this case and she has not seen any incident and she has not given any statement before the police and she is seeing the accused for the first time. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW10 wherein PW10 has denied the suggestion that on 04.05.2020 night at 10.45 pm., there was shouting in a vacant place next to their house near drainage Bridge, Link Road, Sheshadripuram. PW9 has denied the suggestion that CW2 went to ask this and at that time the accused No.1 abused CW2 in a foul language and thereafter the accused No.2 took one stone and threw it on the house. PW10 has denied the suggestion that he called his brother CW3 near the house and went down and then accused No.3 instigated his friends accused No.1 and 2 not to leave him and thereafter the accused No.1 with an intention of murdering of him, has restrained him and took a knife and stabbed CW2 severely on the left 17 SC.No.612/2021 side of his stomach. PW10 has denied the suggestion that when CW3 went to catch accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW3 with hands and escaped from there and she has given the statement in this regard on 06.05.2020. PW10 has denied the suggestion that she has given statement before the police a per Ex.P13. PW10 has denied the suggestion that she has complete information about the case and has given a statement before the police as per Ex.P13 even though she is deposing falsely to help the accused because they requested her.
21. The prosecution in support to bring the guilt of the accused have examined PW1 to PW10 in the present case and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. CW1 being the complainant is examined as PW1 and CW2 is the victim/ injured is examined as PW2, CW3, CW10 and CW11 who have been cited as eye witnesses to the said incident wherein the said PW3, PW9 and PW10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have deposed that they does not know anything about the case nor they have given any statement to the police. CW4 who has been cited as seizure mahazar witness to the said incident wherein the said PW4 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and he has deposed that he does not know anything about the case nor he has any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW4 nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW4 to prove the guilt of the accused. PW5 to PW8 being the panch witness to the spot panchanama and amanath panchanama as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P7 wherein they have deposed that the police have not conducted any spot panchanama and amanath panchaname in their presence nor seized 18 SC.No.612/2021 any articles in their presence. As PW5 to PW8 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the said PW5 to PW8 having been cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, having treated them hositle, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW5 to PW8 with respect to the alleged incident and the conducting of panchanama's in their presence and the evidence of CW9 has been dropped as the proclamation was not published. PW1 being the complainant, PW2 being the victim, PW3, PW9 and PW10 being the eye witness have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses being the spot panchanama and the seizure panchanama have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As PW1 to PW10 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the victim PW2 and PW3, PW9 and PW10 eye witness having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses CW12 to CW20, hence the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor to examine other witnesses was rejected and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 and 2. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted CW2. The PW1- complainant, PW2- victim, PW3, PW9 and PW10 being the eye witnesses to the said incident and PW4 to PW8 being the panchas to the spot and seizure mahazar, having turned hostile and PW1 to PW10 having turned hostile to the entired incident. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. As such the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 5 in the 'Negative'.
19SC.No.612/2021
22. Point No.5:- For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following.-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 352, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled.
Note: - Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file in connection with the absconding accused.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer online computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 5th day of April, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
PW1 : Manjula
PW2 : Pramod
PW3 : Vinod
1
SC.No.612/2021
PW4 : Ashok
PW5 : Naveen
PW6 : Ganesh
PW7 : Venkobarao
PW8 : Vishnu
PW9 : Vasantha
PW10: Padmavathi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot panchanama
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P4 : Statement of PW3
Ex.P5 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P6 : Statement of PW5
Ex.P7 : Amanath panchanama
Ex.P8 : Statement of PW6
Ex.P9 : Statement of PW7
Ex.P10 : Amanath panchanama
Ex.P11 & 12 : Statement of PW8
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:-
-Nil-
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
-Nil-
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.