Bangalore District Court
Kengeri Police Station vs Did Not Damage The Door And Window Glass on 11 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C Serial Number of the C.C.22127/2019 case Name of the State by Police Sub Inspector, complainant Kengeri Police station (Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor ) Name of the accused 1.Mary Amrita, person/s 2.Leenus Anthony,
3.Maria Rosalyn, All the accused are R/a.7th main, 4th cross, Gandhinagar, Kengeri Upanagar,Bangalore.
(Reptd by Sri.Lingaraj Kote .Adv.
Offences complained U/Secs. 324, 427, 504 r/w of Sec.34 of IPC Charges framed for U/Secs. 324, 427, 504 r/w the offences Sec.34 of IPC Date of 16.05.2019 commencement of offence 2 C.C.22127/2019 Date of 11.12.2019 commencement of recording evidence
Date of closure of 11.12.2019 recording evidence Plea of the accused Not Guilty and his examination :
Offences proved Nil Final Order : Accused Not found guilty Date of final order 11.12.2019
I. Brief statement of reasons for the decision:
1. In support of the case of prosecution, C.W.1-
informant of crime - Sri.Dhamodhar is examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that accused no.1 is his wife and accused no.2 and 3 are his in-laws and he further deposed that accused did not pick up quarrel with hi,m and did not abuse him in filthy langage and did not assault him with PVC pipe. P.W.1 further deposed that the accused did not damage the door and window glass. Further P.W.1 deposed that he has not lodged complaint before police as per Ex.P.1 and police have not drawn mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P.2 and did not 3 C.C.22127/2019 sieze any property. Further he deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1-complaint and Ex.P.2-Mahazar.
This witness was treated as hostile witness by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
2. P.W.1 being the prime witness turned fully hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstance, this court with an opinion that no purpose would be served by examining other witnesses, dropped the examination of other witnesses as not required, by rejecting prayer of Learned Sr.A.PP. for issue of process.
3. Under these circumstances, the charges leveled against accused persons remains unproved. As such the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. For the reasons discussed above, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.
4 C.C.22127/2019II. FINAL ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/secs. 504, 324 and 427 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
The PVC pipe, iron rod and the broken glass pieces seized in this case, are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
(Judgment typed to my online dictation by the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of December 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1-Sri.Dhamodhar 5 C.C.22127/2019
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.