Bangalore District Court
State By Kodigehalli vs Muniraju @ Jirale on 6 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 06th day of September 2016
PRESENT:
Sri Rudolph Pereira, B.Com., L L.M.,
CMM, Bengaluru
C.C. No.15386/2012
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : Muniraju @ Jirale, s/o Chikka
Ramaiah, 31 yrs, No.2651, 1st Cross,
1st Main, Behind Swathi Gardenia
Hotel, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru-92.
Date of offence : 24-03-2012
Offence : Section 323, 354, 504 and
506 IPC
Plea of the : Pleaded not
Accused guilty
Final order : Accused Person Acquitted
Date of Judgment : 06-09-2016
2 CC No.15386/2012
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Sub-Inspector of Kodigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru City, has filed charge sheet against accused person
for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 504 and
506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that-
On 24-03-2012 at 8.00 p.m., in front of the house of
CW1 Manjula w/o Muniraju situated at No.2651, 2nd Cross,
Behind Swathi Hotel, E Block, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru,
the accused person picked up quarrel with CW1, abused her
in filthy language and assaulted with hands on her cheek,
back and kicked her with legs. Further, the accused person by
touching the body of CW1, dragged her and outraged her
modesty. It is also alleged that when CW2 Manjula w/o
Rajanna intervened, the accused person talked to her in
singular, assaulted her with hands on ear and outraged her
modesty by dragging her here and there and tearing her
clothes on the back side and also assaulted the children
3 CC No.15386/2012
present there. Further, the accused person threatened CW3
Rajanna, CW4 L.Muniraju @ Subramani, CW5 Shivakumar
and CW6 Narendra with dire consequences, who had
thereafter gone to question the accused. Thereby the accused
person committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Accused person is on bail. After furnishing charge-
sheet copies, on the basis of materials placed before the
Court, the charge against accused person for the alleged
offences was framed, read over & explained in the language
known to him, by my the then learned predecessor. The
accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined in all four witnesses as PW1 to 4, produced
documents as per Ex.P1 to 5 and material object as per MO1.
The remaining witnesses i.e., CW2, 3, 5 and Dr. Kiran did
not turn up before this court inspite of coercive steps taken by
this court. Hence, in the interest of speedy justice to the
accused person, this court dropped the said witnesses by
4 CC No.15386/2012
rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP. Thereafter the
statement of accused person, as required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein he has denied the prosecution case in
toto and opted not to adduce any defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
the prosecution papers.
6. The prosecution has examined the complainant
Manjula as PW3. In fact during chief examination, she has
narrated the alleged incident of the year 2012 and identified
the complaint as per Ex.P3. It is to be noticed that as per the
prosecution case, while outraging the modesty of CW1 and 2,
the accused person had torn the nighty of CW2. But, before
this court, the PW3 has stated that the accused person torn
her nighty on the front and backside. Further, the PW3 has
deposed that the accused person has snatched her mangalya
chain and took away the same. PW3 is also a witness for spot
mahazar (Ex.P1). But during cross-examination by the
learned counsel for defence, she has stated that, she has
5 CC No.15386/2012
signed Ex.P1 in the police station as well as in the spot.
Infact the PW1 has identified a nighty as per MO1. But it is
to be noticed that as per Ex.P1, the said nighty appears to
have belonged to CW2. However, before this court, the PW3
has stated that the said nighty is belonging to her. Since there
is no allegation in Ex.P3 to the above said effects, I am of the
view that the evidence of PW3 is not trustworthy.
7. The prosecution has examined the alleged eyewitness
namely Narendra as PW2. But he has turned hostile and
stated that he has not witnessed any incident and has not
given any statement against the accused person about the
alleged incident dated 24-03-2012 as per Ex.P2.
8. The husband of PW3 and alleged hearsay witness
namely Muniraju entered into the witness box as PW1. His
evidence discloses that at the time of alleged incident, he was
out of station and after coming back, he came to know about
the incident from his wife. The PW1 is also a witness for spot
mahazar. However, he has disclosed that he has signed the
6 CC No.15386/2012
said document in the police station. He has frankly admitted
that he has not seen the nighty seized by the police through
Ex.P1. Hence, I am of the view that the evidence of PW1 is
not useful to the prosecution.
9. The investigating officer Jagadeesh entered into the
witness box as PW4. Of course, he has spoken about the
investigation conducted by him in this case. But it is relevant
to note that in the spot/seizure mahazar (Ex.P1), the PW4 has
not mentioned the name of the company, brand and size of
the nighty (MO1) seized in this case.
10. Herein the alleged one more victim CW2 Manjula
did not turn up before this court. Further, the IO has not
chosen to cite Dr.Kiran as witness in the charge sheet.
Though this court issued summons to the said doctor on
allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by
prosecution, he did not turn up before this court to speak
about the Ex.P5 - wound certificate. Therefore, I am of the
view that there is no supportive and corroborative evidence to
7 CC No.15386/2012
bring home the guilt of accused person, beyond all
reasonable doubt. On the whole, this court is of the view that
accused person is entitled for the said benefit of doubt.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following-
ORDER
The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 504, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC.
His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after the completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on Computer. The computerized print out taken by him is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this day i.e., 06-09-2016) (Rudolph Pereira), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, BENGALURU.
8 CC No.15386/2012ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : Muniraju
PW2 : Narendra
PW3 : Manjula
PW4 : Jagadeesh
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P3 : Complaint
Ex.P4 : F.I.R.
Ex.P5 : Wound Certificate
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Nighty List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.9 CC No.15386/2012
06-09-2016 (Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate sheets) ORDER The accused person is found not guilty. Hence acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 504, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC.
His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after the completion of appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.